…to the whole Wally Hettle / Paul Deignan dustup.
A few things, for the record:
1. I don’t hold Bitch PhD responsible in any way for the comments made by Wally Hettle. I also don’t think Paul should be trying to out her identity. My beef has always been with Hettle’s actions, which its seems to me were an egregious misuse of his position. In the comments on this site and other sites, the argument has been floated that, because Paul Deignan goes to a different school and is studying in a different discipline, Wally’s call to Paul’s advisor wasn’t likely to have much of an effect.
Maybe, maybe not. Clearly, he intended it to—whether he thought it might harm Paul academically, or whether it was just a bullying attempt to chill speech. But the point is, Paul shouldn’t have had his academic career put into any jeopardy simply because he engaged others in an open forum. If, as Dr Hettle argued, Paul was interrupting a private discussion among liberal academics who were hoping to enjoy the same kind of echo chamber atmosphere they operate in within their respective academic departments, then perhaps the solution would be for Bitch PhD to restrict registration for commenting to likeminded liberal commenters.
A litmus test, if you will.
2. I have NOT made the sweeping generalization that all left-leaning professors would behave in the way Dr. Hettle has. In fact, I implied precisely the opposite—and limited that portion of my criticism to Hettle and (hypothetical) people like him:
Wallace Hettle , in my opinion, embodies everything that is wrong with the modern academy. If his behavior over the last several days is any indication, he is doctrinaire and vindictive; and he is an intellectual coward who uses his authority to crush dissent and punish those who dare to voice it. He is meanspirited, and he hides behind the protection of his tenure. People like professor Hettle need to be held to account if we are ever to reclaim the integrity of the humanities departments, overwhelmingly comprised of those who share Hettle’s ideological bent (though not necessarily his character deficiencies).
Having taught in the humanities for many years—and being aware of the indisputable evidence that the humanities lean politically left to a staggering degree—my having noted that the ideological bent of the professoriat is overwhelmingly liberal/progressive is simply a fact. And if you believe, as I do, that political leanings tend to leech through into academic interests, then it follows that to restore the integrity of humanities departments, the aim should be to hire professors whose intellectual and ideological foundation is not so manifestly monolithic.
This is, if course, not the same as arguing that lefty professors are uniformly totalitarian in the classroom. Some are, some aren’t—and most, I dare say, are wonderful, earnest teachers. Dr Hettle, however, has shown himself to be just that kind of totalitarian. Granted, his comments to Paul didn’t take place in a classroom. But he turned the debate into a professional pissing match the moment he used his status as a professor to contact Paul’s academic advisor.
3. Finally, in her recent post Bitch PhD cherrypicks a single comment in order to suggest that Paul’s comments in the original thread were, pace my suggestion in yesterday’s post, uncivil and unsubstantive.
Here are several that she didn’t bother quoting:
I suppose I see a different role for the appellate courts.
Those judges also swear an oath to the Constitution, not to precedent. SCOTUS precedent is functional, but not a substitute for the plain construction or language of the Constituton itself.
In this case, by the logic that the 11th does not protect the states from suits under federal laws by their own citizens, I would have said that Alito should have violated precedent ant thrown the case up to the SCOTUSâ€â€in effect a revolution by the appelate courts against a runaway SCOTUS.
In a sense, that is conservative, in another sense, it is activist. In any case, it is more principled than the rationale being offered here for criticizing Alito.
Paul Deignan | Email | Homepage | 11.02.05 – 1:07 pm | #BPhd —
Then I think you may not understand the issues involved. This is not a policy decision, it is a matter of who can file what lawsuit under what laws against whom. Your characterization was overbroad. Please read it again (e.g. you say “all state employeesâ€Â). It has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of whether or not someone should have 12 weeks leave (a man) based on childbirth. That was a matter for the people of Pennsylvania to decide. Alito, like all those othere judges, had to be bound by the lawsâ€â€including the 11th amendment of the constitution.
Now, the interesting thing about this that apparently was not tested was the fact that the 11th Amendment restricts citizens of other states from bringing suit, not the citizen of a state against that state. Since citizens of the US are dualâ€â€both citizens of the US and the states in which they reside, then why can’t a citizen bring a suit against their own state under a federal law? In other words, there should have been no abrogation issue at all. The 11th amendment clearly implies that the plaintif should have prevailed (my opinion).
Well, I suppose I would have argued the case differently myself. So, if you want to agree with me, then we might fault Alito (and all those other judges). If not, then I just don’t see your point yet.
When I argue, I take pains not to misrepresent a position. Those that misrepresent incurr just criticism. Again, your characterization is overbroad.
Paul Deignan | Email | Homepage | 11.02.05 – 12:00 pm | #I’m sure Paul is very familiar with two clicks … two clicks of his heels. Sig Heil!
mskate | Email | Homepage | 11.02.05 – 10:25 am | #Oops. Sorry. That one wasn’t his.
Here is your first point:
In this case, we must decide whether Congress validly abrogated the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLAâ€Â), 29 U.S.C. SS 2601-54, that require a broad class of employers, including states, to provide their employees with 12 weeks of leave “ecause of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee†and that permit employees to sue in federal court for violations of the Act. We agree with the District Court in this case and with the other Courts of Appeals that have considered this question that Congress did not validly abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity when it enacted these provisions. See Hale v. Mann, No. 99-7326, 2000 WL 675209, at *7 (2d Cir. May 25, 2000); Garrett v. University of Alabama at Birmingham Board of Trustees, 193 F.3d 1214, 1219 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. granted on different issue, 120 S. Ct. 1669 (2000). We therefore affirm the decision of the District Court.
Have you read this? Alito is agreeing with the District courts, other appellate courts and is writing for the majority.
This is a federalism issue, not the overbroad characterization you give it. All the state needs to enact laws to allow the suit. You seem to think that state constitutions and the 11th amendment can be ignoredâ€â€that is activist.
Should I bother with the rest of your unexamined talking points? I don’t think it would be worth the effortâ€â€I’d be putting in more effort and thought than you are willing to invest yourself.
Paul Deignan | Email | Homepage | 11.02.05 – 9:28 am | #
Provocative at times, mildly snarky in some instances—but as I say, largely substantive and clearly looking to engage on the merits of the argument. Whether or not one believes Paul was behaving “civilly” is, I suppose, a matter of perspective and context. As a site administrator who is routinely engaged by angry lefty commenters, I suppose it’s possible I just regarded Paul’s comments as civil by comparison. Objectively? I don’t know. But I linked them, so you can make the call.
Either way, they were not in any way deserving of Wally Hettle’s professional reprisal.
There has been some suggestion by those (inexplicably) defending Dr Hettle that Deignan hasn’t shown us all the comments—that he has gotten rid of the most egregious ones, in which his tone was so vile and his berating so extreme that he practically forced Dr Hettle to act. As any good citizen would!
I’m eager to hear from Paul on this point.
I read through the BitchPhd thread and Paul’s thread, some of the stuff on Cole’s site and here and came to the conclusion that, wrt the lawsuit, Paul needs to get laid.
btw – Paul’s use of Able Danger-style analysis to filter BitchPhd’s identity down to a person who’s in Canada is a bit off. He could, for example, simply read through the first couple of pages of her blog and get a good sense of where she’s teaching.
also, there are no instances Cannuck spellings like ‘colour’, ‘humour’, or ‘pyjamas’ , no Cannuck expressions like ‘in hospital’ or ‘on holiday’, and her descriptions of students, grad students on her blog. Given that she says she’s teaching at a midwestern university outside of a urban area sounds more like Northern Illinois territory than Canada.
I agree with you that Hettle is the guy who’s out of line. He needs to get laid, too.
And here I’d always been told that the cure for bad speech is more speech. Turns out, it’s “try to hurt the other person’s career.”
I find it interesting that the commenters at Cole’s site are so eager to come after me and to defend (or perhaps simply mildly justify) Hettle’s actions.
One of the most interesting responses has been to challenge me on what I think about the law suits Paul is pursuing, as if that at all speaks to my argument that Hettle was wrong.
Personally, I think the lawsuits are unlikely to go anywhere. But I don’t begrudge Paul his redress against Hettle. It matters not what I think other than I believe Hettle acted like a total dick, and that such actions from professors need to be highlighted.
one quick additional point –
BPhD seems to forget that “Spousal Notification” only applies when the fetus/unborn child in question is that of her spouse.
If a woman gets knocked up having an affair, she does not need to notify her spouse to have the abortion.
.
I’m confused by this entire episode and sincerely recommend that we shot everyone involved at sunrise tomorrow.
It’s so much easier.
* shoot
Damn…I wish I could type and load at the same time.
Two words: high school
Maybe I’m immune to snark now, but by most any blog commenter standard, Paul’s argument is perfectly civil. It’s certainly substantive, unlike other kneejerk nazi-tosser syncophants in the same thread. And any assertion that that blog is some forum for high-minded effetes to humbly gather and reverentially muse in gilded prose is crassly belied by the fact that the name of the site is ”Bitch PhD.”
Bitch brought it on herself.
Bitch.
Hilarious.
Let us rally around Paul Deignan, champion of freedom of speech. Who, by the way, is planning to launch ridiculous lawsuits in order to “make an example” of those who don’t respect free speech.
Of course Hettle is a dick. Deignan is also a dick, if you haven’t noticed (and your reluctance to comment on his proposed legal remedies suggests that you have). No one’s free speech was violated, although Hettle is obviously an idiot. But of course if what Hettle did was so beyond the pale, then so is everything that Deignan is planning on doing.
Look, what Hettle did was, I agree, highly objectionable, and all thr more so if it was done for political reasons (although to believe there’s any kind of serious libel case here is absurd). But there’s simply no way to guarantee that one’s career can’t be put in jeporady because of comments made on an open forum. What’s to stop his advisor from googling his comments himself? What you say in public–whatever the medium–might have consequences. This is regrettable, but it’s life, and it’s certainly not a legal injustice.
Moreover, his complaint that this is about his career rings rather hollow in light of his subsequent actions. How many people do you think will be anxious to hire anyone, for any job, once they’ve made a point of threatening friviolous lawsuits to reveal people’s hidden indetities because they hurt your widddle feewings? This public behavior threatens his career far more than any email forwarded to his advisor.
Bitch brought it on herself.
She brought WHAT on herself?
A frivolous lawsuit?
Shouldn’t someone start ranting about tort reform about now?
IANAL, but a libel suit seems like a reasonable response on Denigan’s part.
Reasonable or not, though, I suspect the threatened lawsuit is merely a tool to lever an apology out of Hettle (an apology Denigan rightfully deserves; Hettle’s actions were despicable) and to get the matter on the public record in case of future need. Once the aforementioned apology has been delivered, the threat of legal action will disappear.
And I swear, if I read “Hettle and Denigan were both being dicks” one more time, I’m going to track down the commenter’s elementary school reading comprehension teacher and whack his or her knuckles with a ruler.
TW: stay… just a little bit longer.
The lawsuit wasn’t directed at BitchPHD, Barbar; it was directed at Wally Hettle, who threatened a commenter because he didn’t like what the commenter said.
If that isn’t a violation of free speech, I don’t know what is.
How far down this road do you want to go? Are all blog commenters going to have to use pseudonyms on all posts, for fear of losing their careers?
Then again, based on your fake e-mail, I assume you think this is a good idea.
TV (Harry)
What would BitchPhD’s real-life identity have to do with a lawsuit against Hettle?
And I don’t understand why Hettle contacting Deignan’s advisor is any different from, say, you contacting Deignan’s university. Not that anyone on this website would ever condone such a horrible activity.
Barbar-
Can’t agree that a libel lawsuit based on a false allegation of “threats” is in any way similar to a professor using his title to tattle on and hamper the career of a student at another school based on some blog comments the professor found disagreeable.
More analagous would be Jeff finding out your identity and emailing your boss to tell them they hired a simpleton. For example.
She brought WHAT on herself?
It’s obvious, isn’t it? It. Bitch brought it on herself. Couldn’t have been more clear.
Actually, I just needed to say “Bitch brought it on herself.” Gratifyin’. Try it.
Uh, yeah, no. “Free speech” does not mean “you can say whatever you want with no consequences whatsoever.” If someone you work with overhears you saying natsy things about your boss and tattles, that’s irritating. But it’s not a violation of “free speech.”
Uh, yeah, no. “Free speech†does not mean “you can say whatever you want with no consequences whatsoever.†If someone you work with overhears you saying natsy things about your boss and tattles, that’s irritating. But it’s not a violation of “free speech.â€Â
What did this have to do with the subject at hand? Apples and Oranges.
TV (Harry)
tw: same; It’s NOT the same difference – at all.
Why are people contacting Deignan’s university?
I know people are contacting Hettle’s university because they disapprove of the manner in which he’s throwing his weight around as a professor (ie, to shut down relatively mild debate from a student he disagrees with). Hettle took all this to the workplace… Deignan was speaking to him as one blog commenter to another, and Hettle decided to a) stop debating Deignan face to face and b) go to his advisor as one prof to another and tell him to make his student keep his opinions to himself (I’m extrapolating that this was what he intended to say… I don’t think he ever elucidated his threat beyond “I’m contacting your advisor, young man! *fist shake*”). If you don’t understand the difference between a professor making the first move to jeopardize someone’s advanced degree work versus voicing displeasure about such bullying to the professor’s department head, then I’m afraid I can’t help you. One’s an action, and one’s a reaction. One is crushing dissent, one is reporting such behavior in an attempt to keep academia a place where people aren’t afraid to speak their minds. I’m a grad student myself, and I *hate* the idea that a professor is throwing his weight around like this… students already keep their heads down and their mouths shut too much around my university for fear of biasing a prof against them, and if they feel like they can’t speak on the internet, too, they’ll only get more guarded. What Hettle is doing feels like some sort of mafia or secret thought police… ie, a prof is always watching you, and they talk to each other all the time, so you should be very wary of voicing the wrong opinions. It’s just… vile. Academia is the one place where ideas are supposed to be exchanged freely and with tolerance, and it seems like Hettle is trying to intimidate a student into shutting up because he disagrees with him. That’s not what we’re supposed to be about.
I have NOT made the sweeping generalization that all left-leaning professors would behave in the way Dr. Hettle has. In fact, I implied precisely the opposite—and limited that portion of my criticism to Hettle and (hypothetical) people like him:
Wallace Hettle , in my opinion, embodies everything that is wrong with the modern academy.
Wonderfully obfuscatory, Jeff! Not all left-leaning professors would behave as Hettle has, and he embodies everything that is wrong with the modern academy! Well done, lad—I couldn’t have muddied the water better myself!
Do get in touch with me if you ever decide you want to do this kind of thing for a living.
But of course if what Hettle did was so beyond the pale, then so is everything that Deignan is planning on doing.
Of course it is–because libel is the precise moral equivalent of suing someone else for libel. And prosecuting the guy who broke into your house and stole all your stuff is morally equivalent to theft.
And none of it matters anyway, because everyone, without exception, has–or rather is–a dick.
I suddenly feel very elevated.
I guess I don’t understand your point. One can certainly embody the worst of the modern academy and illustrate its failings without being representative of the majority of its representatives.
It only takes a few such professors to chill speech.
I suddenly feel very elevated.
It must be quite a feeling, thinking that Deignan actually has a substantial legal case in his favor. Save some for the rest of us.
Uncivil? Unsubstantive? His comments sure looked merrit based to me. NOW if they wanted uncivil, Paul could have broke into his best Toll-Booth-Willy…..
“F#ck you, you bunch of lesbian, fish eat’n, whores!”
Actually, the lawsuit is because of libel, and Deignan was/is worried about it because (according to what he told me in email) he is looking for academic jobs and “this threat unanswered and unretracted would be devastating.” I don’t blame him one BIT. The statements by Hettle that Deignan was “stalking” and unstable (because he didn’t do a drive-by comment, but stayed to continue the conversation in the thread!) are so out of line it’s not even funny, and if that’s the kind of thing Hettle said to Deignan’s advisors, I would be worried too.
How anyone can defend Hettle is beyond my non-tenured comprehension.
As far as Deignan’s comments go, suggesting there were some nasty comments that he didn’t include is silly, if you look around at other comments he has left elsewhere and in response to others challenging him at his own blog. You may not agree with him (I don’t always agree with him; in fact, there are certain things I have disagreed with vehemently), but he’s always been civil in debating issues as far as I’ve seen. For him to have some vile comments would be wholly out of character for him. Look for yourselves.
Hettle is the poster child for the intolerant, illiberal left. It’s “funny” (scare quotes intentional) how I keep seeing leftist professors interfering with people’s REAL LIVES because they have an opinion of their own–in a blog comment, of all things! This is absolutely not the first time I’ve seen some lefty prof go off the rails about “fascist,” “Nazi,” “extremist,” “unstable,” conservatives, and I’m sure it won’t be the last. Not as long as everyone keeps ignoring their excesses and giving them a pass (not to mention defending them).
How would you defenders like having your boss or potential job references called by some jerkoff who didn’t like having to see your opinion, and the jerkoff says you’re unstable and a stalker?! It wasn’t even Hettle’s blog, fer Chrissakes!
I still say Bitch PhD is an ass, too, because she banned (and deleted) a civil commenter, but at least she didn’t take it into the real world–apparently she has some respect for Real Life.
It’s one thing to ban and delete a drive-by insult shitter, but banning civilized debate speaks volumes to me about the kind of discussion permitted in her classes. I, however, wouldn’t go calling her university about it.
Oh, and “David Horowitz,” you’re so funny and original. Har har.
This case has little to do with the right of free speech. Paul was making comments on a privately run, though publicly available forum and the forum admin decided to ban him. The fact that she states she is actually a fierce proponent of free speech and open discourse in academia just prior to threatening to ban anyone who further wishes to debate Paul’s banning is just a little on the hypocritical side, but still not a violation of anyone’s rights.
The point is that Professor Wally used his position as a tenured Professor at UNI to attempt to derail Paul’s academic career and through that, his future livelihood. Although I have serious doubts as to how much weight the opinion of a history prof at UNI has with a engineering prof at Purdue, the fact is, a legitimate attempt was made on Wally’s part to do Paul harm. For that reason, and that reason alone, I think the lawsuit is a good idea.
Bringing Bitch into it however is a bit of a stretch, although her continual claims of received threats without any proof is definitely not helping her defence. If she had any sense at all (which seems very unlikely) she would either post the threats or write a simple post apologizing to Paul. An apology would pretty much get her off the hook although it would be funny to see what she considers a threat after seeing what she considers trolling.
Wally, on the other hand, may have already moved beyond the simple apology stage and if he wants to avoid a suit, would probably have to write a formal public apology as well as contact Paul advisors and retract his earlier statements, whatever they may have been.
I don’t think the odds are good, but maybe, just maybe, this type of legal bitch slap may make some of the more extremists profs think twice about abusing their positions. Of course the way academia seems to be behaving as of late, with the firing of anyone supporting a conservative view, even outside of the classroom, and the glorification of those pushing their liberal views, especially inside of the classroom, I wouldn’t be surprised if Professor Wally has already begun scheduling his nationwide speaking tour about how he stood up to ‘The Man’ for ‘The Cause’.
Hmmmm.
I have to agree with you. For some on the Left; some people are more equal than others.
I think I’m going to buy another copy of Animal Farm. My current one has been completely destroyed by my reading it so many times.
Hmmm. On the other hand here’s an online version Link
It’s amazing how applicable Orwell is when discussing the Left.
I think the difference between Paul’s threat of a lawsuit and Hettle’s phone call is perfectly obvious.
Paul writes an opinion on a blog. Zero consequence.
Hettle “tattles” on Paul for not being lefty enough and falsely accuses him of “stalking”. Possible detrimental consequences for career.
Paul considers lawsuit for harassment and libel. Not much likely in the way of consequence, but it’s possible.
We can see clearly enough, Hettle attacked Paul’s reputation and career prospects because he disagreed with him. Paul launches counter-attack in response to real or percieved threat of damage to his career. To suggest that these two are behaving similarly one would have to accept that Paul’s opinion represents as great a threat to do real harm as Hettle’s harassment.
Again, not that the consequence of Paul’s opinion and Hettle’s attack are the same, but that they have the same potential to do damage.
The question of similarity doesn’t turn on whether Paul’s lawsuit is the most effective means of getting redress, but on motives. Paul’s are sound, Mr. Hettle’s are not.
Unless you think there is some vast lefty cabal of professors, nobody’s actions here will have much consequence.
Oh right.
And I would harldy consider Paul’s motives towards BitchPhD “sound,” but that’s just me.
BitchPhD claimed Paul sent implied threats in either the comments or email. I asked her to further characterize and explain his comments, or preferrably, to post them on her blog or resurrect any deleted comments, so all could judge for themselves.
She pointedly refused, and closing the thread to further discussion of the subject. Paul has given her permission to post any of his emails or communications to her, and she has refused. Why?
Though I agree that the primary concern is Hettle, BitchPhD is more involved in this fiasco than first glance suggests. She accused Paul of “spoofing IPs,” and characterized his communications (deleted or unavailable, of course) as threatening and harrassing. Hettle might have acted on these accusations in forming his opinion of Paul as a “lunatic” and fringe pro-life activist. Ironic that Hettle’s best defense is the worst for BitchPhD–that he was relying on the truth of BitchPhD’s statemetns. In either case, Hettle took things too far, and while BitchPhD did not contact his advisors, her allegedly false statements about Pual may have been part of what drove Hettle to make that call.
Thats right Bar, it is just you.
The guy joined , or should I say interrupted,a lefty circle jerk, (“good point Dr. B.!”, Jesus, what a bunch of ass-kissers), to bring a little reality to the discussion. In return he was called things like “nazi”, crapped on by all of good Dr. B’s toe-suckers, and then banned from the discussion as if he had come out in favor of man-boy love.
Following which, some nerdy jerk-off, (one of the aforementioned toe-suckers) decides that he’s going to show the student what’s-what and snitch to his faculty advisor. I think Proffesor Nerd is lucky that Pauldidn’tjust get on an airplane, fly to Iowa and throw him down a flight of stairs or two.
So, yes, it is just you equating the actions of these two people. Which makes you a tool.
“students” – I hope you never get your hands on any.
“To suggest that these two are behaving similarly one would have to accept that Paul’s opinion represents as great a threat to do real harm as Hettle’s harassment.”
Perfectly stated.
Unless you think there is some vast lefty cabal of professors, nobody’s actions here will have much consequence.
Of course you don’t understand the concept of principles.
Hypothetical:
If Bob knowingly lies abou Joe in a public forum. And Susie, at least in part based on Bob’s lies, decides to contact Joe’s employer and try to ruin or damage his career. Is Bob off the hook for his lies?
I think this is a plausible chain. Though Hettle didn’t just rely on BitchPhD’s characterizations, he at least did in part. She is entangled in this mess. She could have avoided (and maybe still can) by retracting any false statements. Or, if they are true, she can provide evidence or explain her actions more clearly.
Any thoughts?
And he’s stupid enough to look for fights on the internet under his own name?
Wow, I really want this guy teaching MY kids. What a dumbass.
I did think, from the comments as Deignan presented them, that he wasn’t being a troll, at least at first. Too bad Bitch Ph.D. & her readers are so snippy. But hey, it’s a big internet.
And the prof who tried to fuck with Deignan is clearly the king jerk of the piece. Whether it’s a “free speech” violation is dubious (gov’t action?), but certainly it’s an academic violation that should go into that guy’s file.
I’m not particularly inclined to defend Hettle, but since everyone seems to be missing one important little post, I’d say that until the actual facts of the matter are known, everyone is pretty much just pulling their rants out of their assholes.
I recommend stuffing them back in there.
Except that Paul posted the email. And it wasn’t at all threatening. Follow the links in yesterday’s post on the matter.
And remember: just because Dr Hettle says it was “threatening” doesn’t necessarily make it so.
This is strange. Why would Hettle contact Paul’s advisor if he didn’t think it would have consequence? Was he just bored? Does he harass internet commentators as a hobby?
I’ll confess a lack of special knowledge in academic politics, but Hettle’s actions clearly had an objective. Was it to simply intimidate the pro-life Paul? Was it to do real damage to Paul’s career? I don’t know, I imagine that’s what Paul’s lawyer will determine in the course of his discovery, but to imply that nothing actually occured because we have yet to establish the extent of damage Hettle (hereafter referred to as Defandant A) intended is ridiculous.
TW: Hours; as in “How many hours of community service will Defendant A and BitchPhD be sentenced with?”
First off, Deignan doesn’t have anything resembling a legal case, so let’s stop pretending he does. And if you can read without laughing the thought process behind his proposed lawsuit that he posted on his blog, then you are a mental defective.
Regarding the consequences of Hettle’s actions—well, let’s pretend. You’re someone’s boss, and someone randomly emails you about an internet dispute that this person got involved in. What is your reaction?
Now some of you guys seem pretty nutty, so perhaps that was a silly question, but I think there’s an email that goes straight in the trash. The biggest impact might be an awareness that your underling spends too much time on the internet.
Of course this does not go as a defense of a loser professor who resorts to tattling on someone as a result of an internet dispute, I’m not sure why everyone seems so eager to interpret my posts that way.
Oh right, because this is mainly about crying about a conspiracy of elitist liberal academics out to get you guys. It’s not about a couple of losers on the internet, that’s much too mundane. How facile I am being even comparing these two losers, I’m sure you guys can demonstrate a thousand shades of loser gray between them.
This is a serious matter. Truth, justice, and the American way.
Shorter Barbar:
Stop bitching. The prof’s gambit failed. Unfortunately. And you just care because you think it shows that some liberal profs are out to get a wingnut. Which is clearly not the case. Because such gambits are likely not to work. Unfortunately. QED.
Blase, snark, sarcasm, yawn.
Shorter Jeff G:
I can win this argument if I close my eyes and pretend that you’re defending the professor’s actions!
___________
BTW, the reason I point out the lack of consequence is that a poster above had compared the likely consequences of each participant’s actions above. Of course by addressing that point I opened myself up to idiot charges like “But what about the principle??” and “the prof’s gambit failed, unfortunately” nonsense above. But what did I expect debating with the masters of intellectual integrity over here?
Hettle is the poster child for the intolerant, illiberal left.
Oh, and “David Horowitz,†you’re so funny and original. Har har.
Not at all, Beth. Thank you for making my point for me—that Jeff here is trying to make Hettle the poster child of the academic left. But I thought I did fine on my own, actually.
Even though Jeff himself didn’t get it:
I guess I don’t understand your point. One can certainly embody the worst of the modern academy and illustrate its failings without being representative of the majority of its representatives.
OK, I’ll try again. At the outset of this post, you made the claim that you “implied precisely the opposite” of the “sweeping generalization that all left-leaning professors would behave in the way Dr. Hettle has.” Although there isn’t really an “opposite” of a generalization, your meaning is clear enough: you want to insist in this sentence that you’re treating Hettle as the exceptional case. Then you quote yourself saying that Hettle “embodies everything that is wrong with the modern academy.” It’s quite clear from your pair of posts on the subject that you do think of Hettle as a representative case, distinguishable from his liberal colleagues only by means of his “character deficiencies.”
So Hettle is exceptional, and yet emblematic at the same time. Well, Jeff, there’s a tension there. Or a straight-up contradiction, if you like. And, to make the offer once again, there’s always a place at my table for anyone who can exploit it at the expense of liberal professors.
This ain’t Cole’s site. I won this argument ages ago.
I don’t suggest you are defending the prof’s actions. In fact, you are pointingly NOT defending them so that you can ply your justifications under the defense that you are equally critical of the prof. I don’t buy it.
And hey, that last bit about debating “masters of intellectual integrity over here?”—that would be considered actionable uncivil by those who actions you continue to try to obliquely justify.
Agreed. Given the chance, most of them would act worse.
Okay. It took a while, but I found it. I have to give him props for writing an email that reads exactly like someone very, very creepy is writing something threatening without it being perceived as threatening by himself. I guess you can take your pick on either John Malkovich or Pamela Anderson’s voice reading it. One of the troubles with written correspondence and internet “relationships” is nobody knows you and nobody can hear your tone of voice.
If I got that email, I wouldn’t assume it was all roses. Crazy people are out there (even on the internet!). If the error referred to was simply crossing a crazy person, the professional embarassment hinted at was serious and the time limit was a blackmailing threat, that email wouldn’t have been worded much differently.
It doesn’t have to be a threat to be perceived as one. I’m not a lawyer, but I’d guess that a perceived threat is frowned upon; enough to allow someone to complain about it.
Thanks for your willingness to take time to set me straight, but again, I must point out that you seem to find tensions where there aren’t any.
I said in my post that Hettle is emblematic of all that is wrong—not that he is emblematic of the entirety of the academy. He represents a rare case, but one that nevertheless sets the tone for much of what goes on in humantities depts.
Your decision to try to set at odds exceptional with emblematic is the problem here. You can be both—exceptional of the whole, and emblematic of the problematic subset.
I can see how it might confuse you. Let me explain,
You’ll forgive us for thinking you were defending Defendant A by trying to conflate his actions and Paul’s and dismiss them both.
A. Harassment and Libelous statements in retaliation for publishing opinions on an open forum.
B. Threat of a lawsuit against Defendant A for above actions.
Never mind. You’re right Barbar, it’s so close I can’t even remember who did what anymore.
I think you’ll be amazed at just how little substance your comments contain when you strip away the insults. I was.
What’s really funny is that if it were a righty prof and a lefty student, lefties would be calling th prof a “Nazi” and a “McCarthyist” for using these tactics, picketing the prof’s house and demanding he be fired in the name of free speech.
“what did I expect debating with the masters of intellectual integrity over here?”
Just what you got, bud. And just what you were looking for.
You got to pretend to detached superiority, which seems to be a fairly common lefty affectation. It did take you an awful long time to get to the point where you get to throw up your hands, sigh loudly, and exclaim, “if only everyone were as wise as I!” But keep practicing, in time I’m sure you can get it done in half the number of comments this little excursion took.
means – Do you know what the term “cheap backshot” means?
Don’t think I don’t know what you are implying, you devious bastard. No one can talk to me that way and get away with it. The proper authorities have been notified, I would call a lawyer if I were you, you sick fuck.
what rickinstl said, both times.
a (presumtive) white male engineer delivers a cogent bithslap to an acadamia-nut who plies herself with awesome monikers and adjectives in a feeble attempt to uplift her facade of self worth that hides her total uselessness in human survival.
As the edifice starts to crumble, another soft-prof worm who claims to have male genetalia rises to her defense:
Geek engineer not convinced of intellegent design files lawsuit.
Remember not to take a single statement in isolation.
Wally also called Paul a “lunatic” and insinuated he was not much different than terrorists who bomb abortion clinics. Taken in that context, how do you think he meant others to construe “threatening?” If someone makes a legal threat, then you usually say that–X threatened to sue me.
Moreover, Paul’s email suggesting Wally change his mind was written AFTER Wally promised to make “acquintances” with Paul’s advisors. That’s right, what Wally refers to as a “threat” occurred after Wally stated he would do his best to ruin Paul’s chances of finishing his Ph.D or receiving employment in academia.
I might have more sympathy for BitchPhD if she clarified her statements. She has not defined what she meant by “spoofing IPs,” or published any of Paul’s supposedly intemperate comments or emails. I can only guess that they don’t exist, or they do but she is mischaracterizing their content.
I left a few comments on Pauls site. But now i’m starting to feel bad for having egged him on. This guy is supposedly worried about his reputation!!??
Yipee kai ya, Hans. Well said.
Hmmm.
“David Horowitz”
Where’s the damn *Ignore* button?
An accusation of stalking could cause serious damage to one’s chances. Look, if you already know your “boss” really well, then they could dismiss it with a laugh. (hopefully.)
But what if you aren’t that close? What if it makes them hesitate to do you a professional favor (say hook you up with a job) just because in the back of their mind they worry about if it were true.
“Unless you think there is some vast lefty cabal of professors”
There is. Sort of. I’m presently on course to become part of it. Such as it is. Except I’m not really a lefty anymore. *shhh* don’t tell anyone …
I have examined Wally’s comments on my blog and found them wanting of consistency (to put it mildly).
Can we make a rule that people who pose as right-of-center commentators or activists don’t get responsed to? This “I’m David Horiwitz” stuff is pretty annoying. If you’re going to hide behind a screen name, you can do better than that.
This isn’t a random person emailing someone’s boss. This isn’t a random person emailing someone’s professor. This is a professor emailing a professor, and expecting a certain amount of professional courtesy and favor due to their common standing. Now, Deignan’s boss may write Hettle off as a nutcase, but he may not. And Deignan shouldn’t have to take that chance just because Hettle can’t handle some free debate in a public forum.
I think it’s also important to note that, almost as soon as the conversation began, Hettle began making remarks about Deignan’s mental health, appearance, sex life, and academic prospects that were designed to hurt and to provoke more extreme reactions. Deignan didn’t rise to the provocation in the thread, which, in my opinion places him on a higher ethical plane than Hettle. Still, I think the lawsuit is ill advised and the attempt at involving “Bitch PhD” is ethically insupportable.
If you’re going to hide behind a screen name, you can do better than that.
I certainly did. Of course, entering an open forum with your real name was Deignan’s choice. Fair or not, he did open this can of worms. But Rule #1 of the blogosphere, if not the internet, is that the decision to reveal your own identity is yours alone, and he certainly isn’t playing fair in that regard. In fact, his whole legal game is predicated on the idea that everyone should engage at his level and should face the same risks. Well, no. You face more risks by identifying yourself, and you can’t sue your way out of all of them.
The whole episode is just evidence that the Internet doesn’t make people any smarter.
“Still, I think the lawsuit is ill advised and the attempt at involving “Bitch PhD†is ethically insupportable.”
I am not so sure that is certain. I think that without contacting Paul’s department, a lawsuit would have been silly. But it does not follow because BitchPhD didn’t contact his apartment that she should be immune. In a sense, she’s been dragged into this by Wally. She made some pretty specific and probably false accusations about Paul, specifically the “spoofing IPs” comment, which she has yet to explain.
Fair or not, he did open this can of worms.
What a load of crap. Sounds like the old “she was asking for it” rape defense to me. No, the idiotic professor opened this can of worms.
apartment=department…. Duh.
Wally’s defense of his actions is demonstrably false. I have an entry at:
http://advocatusd.blogspot.com/2005/11/hettles-conflicting-comments.html
Sorry about linking in comments. I haven’t figured out the trackback thing.
It does now in Florida, doesn’t it? Or does that only count w.r.t. shooting someone?
Do we have any proof that Hettle actually called Deignan’s advisors? Or did Hettle merely THREATEN to do this, fully intending to avoid following through on this threat? If there was any proof of this point, I guess I missed it. And when I say proof, I mean something other than the say-so of Deignan.
Read my post linked above. Hettle said he had contacted his advisors by email before Paul ever emailed him. It’s clear as day. Hettle’s ad hoc defense of only responding to a “threatening email” is a total fabrication, except insofar as you probably did this AS WELL. It is certainly not why and where Wally’s correspodence started, however.
Fred —
What do you want? A signed affadavit? Hettle said he was going to do it. Deignan said he did it; Hettle has not denied doing it.
Why people are so bent on trying to excuse what this guy did is beyond me.
Jeff, actually he said he had ALREADY emailed his advisors before Paul ever contacted him. Read my account. Wally’s first post addressing Paul on the thread was (remember, this was BEFORE Paul emailed Wally, urging him to reconsider his path):
Troll boy is a student of the highly relevant field of mechanical engineering.
The moron is trolling under his real name from a home page which lists the names of his advisors. So I emailed them, as this behavior is thoroughly unprofessional.
BTW, I have a PhD and actual tenure. And I happen to know many profs who work from home, like myself.
I’ve read some of Dr. B’s scholarship and it is superb.
Maybe Paul can come back after finishing HIS dissertation–if he finishes.
Anyway, Paul, I’m going to make an acquaintance with the admin. of your engineering school tomorrow, but I’m logging off for tonight.
Wallace Hettle
Actual Professor
Google Me
University of Northern Iowa
wally | Email | Homepage | 11.02.05 – 6:43 pm | #
Now he has framed his defense as something like “I only forwarded a threatening email to his advisors.” But his own post makes clear he already emailed his advisors before Paul and Wally had any email correspondence. Paul’s “threatening email” was civil, and merely gave Wally a chance to avoid “some professional embarrassment.” It may be true, as Wally contends, that he forwarded this email. BUT this was not his first communication to Paul’s advisors. Wally’s repeated defense that he was only “forwarding a threatening email” without much comment is demonstrably false.
If Wally did what he has been accused of, he should be fired.
As for the merits of threatened litigation…..perhaps a good candidate for Judge Judy.
Neither Paul nor Wally recognize that the case is about entertainment value and Judy is the star. Each strives to impress Judy with his superior intellect and legal analysis and, unfortunately for both, succeeds. Realizing both are smarter than she is, Judy gets righteously pissed and tongue-lashes both of them, making it clear that being a horse’s ass undermines superior intellect and legal acumen everytime. Audible chuckles and whispers of “”whiner” and “what an asshole” are heard in the background. Judy glares, starts to raise her gavel, then…”nah, they can’t mean me.”
Judgment for Paul in the sum of $1.00. Wally’s counterclaim dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the tort of being exposed as a pathetic hack having yet to be recognized in any jurisdiction. Each party to pay the cost to his own dignity.
In the post-judgment interview, Paul acknowledges satisfaction for the verdict since his suit was “always about principle, not the money,” and goes on to rightfully claim that Wally has finally been adjudged to be the bigger horse’s ass.
Wally stomps away from the microphone vowing to appeal, “unless that Nazi Alito is confirmed,” leaving absolutely no doubt that Judy got it right!
Next case…..
Ibelyle, you are my Hero of the Day.
I have NOT made the sweeping generalization that all left-leaning professors would behave in the way Dr. Hettle has.
Wallace Hettle , in my opinion, embodies everything that is wrong with the modern academy.
Since when is “everything that’s wrong with the modern academy” NOT a sweeping generalization?
Just curious.
Since when is saying than an indivual “embodies everthing that is wrong with the modern academy” the same as attributing that to “all left-leaning professors”?
Try to wrap your mind around this. It’s not too difficult. The secret? Stop trying to play gotcha and concentrate on what’s actually being said.
A frivolous lawsuit! Somebody call Santorum!
Jeff,
The PDF is a true copy of what was available at that time. There seems to be comments in reply to some of my comments deleted as well.
This was the first PDF. Unfortunately, I had no idea until some time after Hettle went wacko that I would need to be recording the thread. Naturally, it is libellous to characterize comments as defamatory when those comments are deleted by the person doing the characterization (and without showing the comments).
The insinuation that I was the one deleting comments is stupid beyond belief (where do people come up with this BS?) as well as transparently false.
Naturally, it is libellous [sic] to characterize comments as defamatory when those comments are deleted by the person doing the characterization (and without showing the comments).
WTF? Fer chrissakes: get thee to a law library, find a torts hornbook, and read about libel law.