Andrew Shirvell: Former U-M student body president pushed 'radical homosexual agenda'
Former state assistant attorney general Andrew Shirvell testified today that he believes former University of Michigan student body President Chris Armstrong was trying to push his "radical homosexual agenda," according to a Detroit Free Press report.
Andrew Shirvell
Shirvell was fired in 2010 after criticizing Armstrong on an anti-gay blog, in Facebook posts and during visits to the Ann Arbor campus. He says he has a right to express his belief that Armstrong is a radical activist, according to previous reports. A judge in April dismissed a lawsuit Shirvell filed against Armstrong alleging the student had defamed him.
While representing himself Wednesday, Shirvell testified that he believed Armstrong was too radical for his position after learning of the student's push for gender-neutral housing at U-M, the Free Press reported.
The jury was expected to begin deliberations in the case this afternoon.
Read the full Detroit Free Press story.
Read past coverage of the Andrew Shirvell-Chris Armstrong conflict here.
Comments
bobslowson
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 3:37 p.m.
The way it looks to me is that Shirvell is pushing his radical christian agenda onto Armstrong
dogpaddle
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 3:01 p.m.
I find it interesting that Shirvell is accusing Armstrong of pushing a radical agenda. Has anyone held a mirror up to Shirvell's face?
Doug
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 2:21 p.m.
Left wing radicals keep plugging along!
YpsiVeteran
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 5:52 p.m.
This isn't an issue of beliefs, either liberal or conservative. It's an issue of behavior and a deliberate indifference to accepted boundaries.
Halter
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 9:46 a.m.
Representing himself....that's about all you need to know in this one.
trafikskeptik
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 2:58 a.m.
Amusing to see the book "How to Be Gay" is being tagged by AA.com as "Related Content."
YpsiVeteran
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 2:54 a.m.
Shirvell's "defense," that Armstrong was pushing some homosexual agenda, would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. Even if Arrmstrong WAS pushing a wildly radical homosexual agenda -- if he was advocating forced sex-changes and mandatory cross-dressing, for example -- of what POSSIBLE concern was it to Shirvell, an employed Assistant AG of the state of Michigan who was not a student? To me, that's where the wheels come off all Shirvell's protestations. He DIDN"T GO TO SCHOOL THERE AT THE TIME. Who does he think appointed him savior of the entire class that elected Armstrong? Were they all in danger of being forcibly brainwashed and indoctrinated into a cult? Had a large class of American's best, brightest and most intelligent students suddenly become unable to advocate for themselves? I hope the jury awards Armstrong millions. Shirvell richly deserves it.
YpsiVeteran
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 5:43 p.m.
Trespass, I get your point, and I appreciate your depth of knowledge on the topic. The facts are important, and subtle distinctions can make all the difference. My issue is with his continued foisting off on the public of his delusion that he's being crucified for his beliefs and not his actions. He reminds me of Kwame constantly telling everyone who will listen that he went to prison for cheating on his wife. I take strong exception to Shirvell's claim that it was the issue. He could have easily presented his information about Armstrong's alleged activities and club memberships to the student body, the administration, whatever. There are many things that someone sincerely concerned about a cause and the welfare of his alma mater would have done that Shirvell did not.
Ron Granger
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 1:16 p.m.
What law firm would want to hire Shirvell after all this negative attention he has brought himself and the state of michigan attorney general's office? From that perspective, Shirvell has only himself to blame. As for paying any settlement, they can garnish his future wages. He can think about what he did as he bags groceries, or whatever.
trespass
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 10:03 a.m.
@Ypsi- By the same reasoning, why should any alumnus care whether or not the football team wins or not. Shirvell was an alumnus and former president of the student right to life group. The Ann Arbor campus is very liberal so I am sure it wasn't easy to be actively politically conservative during his days as a student, which probably contributes to his view of himself as a crusader for conservative family values. How much the jury awards him is only valuable for headlines because even if the jury awards him $100,000, Shirvell doesn't have the money to pay it. Shirvell's only alternative is to appeal the case and then the Armstrong family is paying their lawyer another fortune. Its like the old joke, "doctor, it hurts when I do this. Well don't do that!
njgreg
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 2:40 a.m.
I think that Mr. Shirvell should consider moving to Mississippi, he might the culture down there more to his liking.
Townie
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 1:54 a.m.
It continues to amaze me with someone with his sort of behavior would be a 'former state assistant attorney general' for the State of Michigan. Scary really given all his crazy behavior and extraordinary bad judgement. It's pretty obvious he had some sort of fixation on Armstrong. And his skills as a lawyer appear to be lacking given his record in court lately. And we taxpayers paid him? For what?
fjord
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 10:47 a.m.
It's less amazing when you look at who our attorney generals have been lately. Cox and Schuette — not much better than Shirvell, if any.
dfossil
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 12:13 a.m.
You have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater but you will be held responsible for that action & it is NOT protected speech! Andrew Shirvell is reaching & clearly rather paranoid in what he calls "radical"
Paul Taylor
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 : 10:10 p.m.
Shirvell wasn't fired for the blog. He was fired for doing it on State time and using State computers.
Paul Taylor
Fri, Aug 17, 2012 : 11:17 a.m.
http://www.annarbor.com/news/andrew-shirvell-fired-from-job-at-attorney-generals-office/#.UC4mO2t5mSM Notes the use of state resources.
trespass
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 2:54 p.m.
I think it is interesting that a statement that is factually inaccurate (the findings of the AGs report were shown in court) gets so many votes while the correction is voted down. I think it shows how the voters are voting for which side they are on rather than caring about facts.
trespass
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 : 10:35 p.m.
Actually you are wrong. The findings of the AG's investigation listed a number of reason's for firing him and only one was for using his state computer. Most were related to the blog or media coverage related to the blog.
trespass
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 : 10:09 p.m.
I have been there almost every day of the trial and there has been a lot more discussed than gender neutral housing. 1. Shirvell said that he was particularly concerned with the fact that Armstrong had joined the Order of Angell (formerly Michigaumia) after promising the Native American students association that he would not and changing his mind a few weeks later. His decision was condemed by the Student Dems for the same reason. The order of Angell has a frankly racist history of using indian dress, painitng themselves red (think blackface), using fake indian names (e.g. Scalper Yost). They promised several times to change those practices but were found not to have done so. They changed their name in 2006 and claim once again that they have changed their racist and sexist past practices. You can see a particularly disturbing picture of the initiation ceremony in 1966 at this website http://goodspeedupdate.com/michigamua-information 2. Gender neutral bathrooms as well as gender neutral housing (men and women sit in stalls next to each other in a converted women's bathroom) 3. Armstrong was instrumental in bringing a national LGBT conference to UM. 4. Armstrong's friends were advertizing a party that they entitled "A night of homosexual shenanigans" (reportedly tongue in cheek) 5. Advocacy for gay rights issues This was the basis for Shirvell's claim of a radical homosexual agenda and that Armstrong was a liar and a racist. The most important event was the judge's decision to instruct the jury that Mr. Armstrong was not a "limited public figure" despite the testimony that he was elected to represent 40,000 students and have control of a budget of more than $500,000 in state money for student organizations and testified that he considered himself a gay rights activist and planned on having a career in politics. This seems likely to give Shirvell grounds to appeal any adverse verdict and we will probably be seeing this case drag on in the court for years
YpsiVeteran
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 6:08 p.m.
Trespass, I don't agree with your categorization of the lawsuit as "vengeance." In light of Shirvell's behavior, it's difficult to conclude that Armstrong wouldn't still be Shirvell's target if it weren't for the court actions, and given that Shirvell has already displayed a total inability and/or unwillingness to conduct himself in accordance with the expectations of a civilized society, it seems to me Armstrong's actions are more along the line of "the best defense is a strong offense."
YpsiVeteran
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 5:33 p.m.
Trespass, the "free speech" argument is a just a distraction. Shirvell did not simply voice an opposing viewpoint or champion a conservative cause. He targeted an individual, and not just with speech. It was reported that he went to Armstrong's house, on the sidewalk or otherwise, contacted Armstrong's employer, etc. This is NOT a free speech argument. Shirvell proved conclusively that his issue was Armstrong, the person, and not the issue. People who are issue-oriented and simply dedicated to a cause or an ideal, without any other agenda, do not behave the way Shirvell did and does. The fact that he allowed his behavior to cost him a job and a livelihood is a classic sign of a deeper problem. Substitute "alcohol" or "drugs" or "gambling" for "Armstrong" in this situation and Shirvell is exposed for what his is -- a person with a psychological problem.
trespass
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 2:43 p.m.
@Ron-The myth of the apology was created by Ms. Gordon. Only one of the offers that Deborah Gordon was ever made to Shirvell. The rest were just anounced in the press. What they wanted was for him to say that everything that he said in the blog was a lie even events that were provably true. They also wanted him to do this at a time when he was still appealing his firing from the AGs office. That would have ruined his appeal. @Ed- I agree with you but there are many people in the "family values" community who would agree with Shirvell. We live in a liberal island but much of the country has opinions that are closer to those expressed by the "family values" community. We can disagree with their views and we can try to convince them but they also have the right to disagree with us and try to convince us. Now what is harder to defend is the more specific factual allegations Shirvell made but what complicates that is that Armstrong's friends were posting comments on Armstrong's facebook account where they were joking about orgy's and parties of "A night of homosexual shenanigans". The jury then has to decide if a reasonable person should have known they were joking. @Clownfish- Shirvell blogged about Armstrong's activities, he did not stop him from having a party or organizing events. The classic suggestion is that the cure for bad speech is more speech. Armstrong was advised by his hollywood publicist, provided by UM, not to respond to Shirvell in the media. I think that was bad advice. Many of Shirvell's comments were easy to make look foolish or patently false. Armstrong could have done more for gay rights by using the media spotlight to show the value of what he was doing rather than just calling Shirvell a bully and ignoring him.
clownfish
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 1:35 p.m.
How dare Armstrong exercise his constitutional right to belong to groups he wanted to belong to! How dare he exercise his right of speech. That kind of activity is too radical for this country. The very idea that gay people are human and created equal is radical, dude.
Ed Kimball
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 1:15 p.m.
The Michigaumia claim, if true, may support the claim of liar and racist. But advocating for gay rights and bringing a national LGBT conference to UM is hardly radical.
Ron Granger
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 1:13 p.m.
"It is not as if he hasn't suffered tremendous consequences already. He lost his job, he is broke and living with his mother but that is why continuing to pursue the lawsuit for years to come is just piling on. Whatever verdict Armstrong is able to get, he won't collect much money because Shirvell doesn't have the money. The Armstrong family is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to Gordon's law firm with little hope of recovering money from Shirvell. Only a rich family could afford such expensive vengeance." And yet he refused to apologize, which was all he needed to do in order to make this lawsuit immediately end. So, awwww, cry me a river.
trespass
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 9:47 a.m.
@Ypsi- I don't defend his blog but I think he had a sincere belief in his "mission", which he has testified was to get Armstrong to resign as MSA president because he thought Armstrong's gay rights activism and membership in Order of Angell were harmfull to the University (of course in the light of his conservative religious views). He is Catholic and was surrounded by the Ave Maria law school community and conservative politicians. It is not as if he hasn't suffered tremendous consequences already. He lost his job, he is broke and living with his mother but that is why continuing to pursue the lawsuit for years to come is just piling on. Whatever verdict Armstrong is able to get, he won't collect much money because Shirvell doesn't have the money. The Armstrong family is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to Gordon's law firm with little hope of recovering money from Shirvell. Only a rich family could afford such expensive vengeance.
YpsiVeteran
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 2:44 a.m.
Trespass, whatever Armstrong was or was not, it was a matter for the student body and the University, exclusively. At the time this all started, Shirvell was an employee of the state of Michigan, long removed from campus life. Shirvell chose to insert himself, in an extremely hostile and negative way, into a situation that was of absolutely zero concern of his, and instead of focusing on whatever issue allegedly was/is so important to him, he focused solely on a person, to the exclusion of any other course of action that could have actually impacted a situation he now pretends was so close to his heart. His behavior was over-the-top outrageous, and he has no one to blame but himself.
L'chaim
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 2:10 a.m.
Armstrong's membership in the racist Michigaumia is disgusting. That's the first I'd heard of it. But my impression was that Shirvell has most concerned with the issue of homosexuality. His dubbing Armstrong's activities "radical" a real measure of his own paranoia and deranged bias.
amlive
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 : 9:51 p.m.
I really, really hope to see this saga retold a network mini-series some day soon.
Paul Taylor
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 : 10:28 p.m.
The mental image of his self-cross examination reminds me of the courtroom scene from Woody Allen's film, Bananas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4zP7247W7o
alterego
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 : 9:45 p.m.
According to the freep, "Shirvell, who is representing himself, questioned himself on the witness stand for more than an hour this morning". That must have been entertaining to hear.
bobslowson
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 : 8:12 p.m.
Shirvell should have the book thrown at him for wasting the courts time on this nonsense.
trespass
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 9:33 a.m.
@Jake & Ypsi- Chris Armstrong's family hired Deborah Gordon in September 2010 while he was still seeking a protective order against Shirvell although I don't think she was officially his attorney until after he dismissed the PPO case because he was being represented by student legal services. Deborah Gordon immediately began to communicate with the AG's office regarding their investigation of Shirvell. Then she filed a complaint with the Attorney Grieivance Commission, which she publicized in the press. Then she and Armstrong filed their suit. That is why Shirvell's lawsuit is listed as the cross complaint (i.e. counter suit). The suit againt Deborah Gordon has not been dismissed. Only one of three counts was dismissed. The counter suit against Armstrong was dismissed but the dismissal is subject to appeal. The judge in this case is a former civil rights attorney and very liberal. His rulings have been overturned so many times that he was ordered to go back to "judge school" (his words not mine). I am not defending Shirvell's blog but I became interested when UM police gave him a trespass warning and he dropped his PPO case. I had already been campaigning against the abuse of the trespass policy by UM police. At some point Shirvell became the underdog. He was all alone fighting the might of the University and all of her allies and resources.
YpsiVeteran
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 3:18 a.m.
Trespass, Shirvell went to court first, back in April, and also filed on Armstrong's attorney. If his suits hadn't been thrown out, he'd be hard at it still. http://annarbor.com/news/judge-dismisses-andrew-shirvell-lawsuit-against-former-u-m-student-body-president/#.UCxlVKBPpEM How can you defend the guy if you don't know what he actually did?
Jake C
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 12:41 a.m.
If I remember correctly, it was Shirvell who filed the first lawsuit against Armstrong, who responded in-kind with his own lawsuit. So yeah, if you want to blame someone for this whole mess, I'd start with Shirvell "choosing to go to court", not Armstrong.
trespass
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 : 10:29 p.m.
Shirvell did not choose to go to court. That was strictly a decision by Armstrong's family. It is costing Armstrong's father a fortune and given the fact that Shirvell has already lost his job, living with his mother and almost penniless makes one have to ask why the Armstrong's family is even bothering.
Top Cat
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 : 8:07 p.m.
Andrew Shirvell sounds like one of those people that if he moved next door to you, would complain that your cat was too loud.
John of Saline
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 : 9:37 p.m.
...even if you didn't have a cat.
xmo
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 : 8:04 p.m.
After reading this article, I fail to see equal treatment for Mr. Shirvell. Mr. Armstrong comes out to be the good guy while Shirvell is the bad guy before their day in court. I can understand why everybody is so upset with this case and the reporting!
Madeleine Borthwick
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 9:23 p.m.
xmo, if the shoe fits..
L'chaim
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 2:03 a.m.
@tresspass-- Alright. I stand corrected on that point. My mistake.
trespass
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 : 10:26 p.m.
@L'chaim- there has been no testimony that he hid behind bushes. All testimony says he was standing on the sidewalk. It is also far from clear that he followed Armstrong around Ann Arbor other than going to carry a protest sign at certain events. All parties agreed that he had never spoken or communicated directly with Armstrong. Shirvell denied the story about following Armstrong's friends at a birthday pub crawl entirely. He said that one of Armstrong's friend's recognized him walking on campus and approached him. He told her to get away from him or he would call the police and walked away. The story testified to by Armstrong's friend in court was one of the most lurid tales told but it is not clear that it ever happened. In court it was strictly he said she said and she was the only one drinking that night.
L'chaim
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 : 9:43 p.m.
Are you talking about the aa.com report or the DFP report; and, are you saying that you see a pro-Armstrong bent in the coverage? I don't see that at all. It objectively ignores Armstrong's position altogether (the aa.com report) so it doesn't promote him as the 'good guy' in any way. It also ignores the fact that Shirvell was stalking Armstrong and video taping him from behind bushes, which wold make him look worse.
leaguebus
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 : 8:59 p.m.
I am a little fuzzy about equal treatment. If Shirvell had attacked Armstrong with his fists, he would have been the bad guy. So he attacked Mr Armstrong in print and then started following him around Ann Arbor. It would make me worry about my safety if an angry Shirvell had shown up at my apartment and several other meetings that I was in.
Enso
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 : 8:09 p.m.
Tell me, why should ANYONE tolerate bigotry?
sigdiamond
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 : 8:03 p.m.
"Shirvell testified that he believed Armstrong was too radical for his position after learning of the student's push for gender-neutral housing at U-M" Having men and women live together is part of a "radical homosexual agenda?" How does that work?
trespass
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 9:18 a.m.
@Jake- Mr. Armstrong testified that his proposed gender neutral housing policy did not give LGBT community members any rights that were not also given to all other members of the university community. If the policy applies only to those with "non-standard gender identification" then what Mr. Armstrong testified to would not be true. What you are saying is probably true of the policy that was adopted by the university but not what he proposed.
Jake C
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 12:33 a.m.
See: http://www.housing.umich.edu/gender-neutral and http://www.housing.umich.edu/faq/63
Jake C
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 12:32 a.m.
Um no, there are many circumstances in which roommates can request new living arrangements. And no, gender-neutral housing is not intended to allow boyfriends & girlfriends to live together in undergraduate dorms. It's intended to allow those with "non-standard gender identification" to state a preference for which gender they would feel most comfortable sharing a room, so they can be paired with someone who shares similar views.
trespass
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 : 10:16 p.m.
In order for the LGBT community to be able to claim that gender neutral housing does not give special rights to LGBT students the policy must allow all students to choose to room with an opposite sex person. This means that a heterosexual boyfriend/girlfriend may choose to room together. What you have to remember is that once you choose a roomate you are stuck with that person for the rest of the year. What happens if the couple breaks up? I think there is a lot of potential for domestic abuse in such a policy. The university does allow some gender neutral housing to accomodate some transgender students but they did not adopt the policy as proposed by Armstrong.
fjord
Wed, Aug 15, 2012 : 7:54 p.m.
Only in the pea brain of someone like Shirvell could the desire for equal treatment under the law be considered "radical."
Madeleine Borthwick
Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 9:22 p.m.
too right, fjord, but let's don't insult the peas of the world.....