Here's the message that a Univ. of North Carolina at Wilmington professor
wrote back to socialist student Rosa Fuller after she sent him an open
letter quoting from the World Socialist Website
(http://www.politechbot.com/p-02958.html):
> I will certainly forward this to others and I hope they will respond. My
>response will be brief as your "statement" is undeserving of serious
>consideration. Your claimed interest in promoting rational discussion is
>dishonest. It is an intentionally divisive diatribe. The Constitution
>protects your speech just as it has protected bigoted, unintelligent, and
>immature speech for many years. But, remember, when you exercise your
>rights you open yourself up to criticism that is protected by the same
>principles. I sincerely hope that your bad speech serves as a catalyst for
>better speech by others.
Rosa's father says in his response (below) that such a pointed response was
"abusive libelous":
>(1) he sent her an abusive e-mail letter, with the use of the University's
>computing system, and (2) he sent either the same letter or substantially
>the same letter to at least one other student (who acted on his false
>representation) and, therefore, libeled Rosa, in violation of the
>University's Computing Resource Use Policy. ... Dr. Adams was not charged
>with harassment but with having sent an abusive and libelous e-mail letter
>to an undergraduate, in violation of professional ethics and the
>University's computing policy.
-Declan
---
From: "Dennis Fuller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FIRE and UNCW
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 18:54:29 +0000
My daughter, Rosa Fuller, a student at the University of North Carolina at
Wilmington, has asked me to represent her in all matters that have to do
with her dispute with UNCW professor Mike Adams, one other faculty member
and two students.
I contacted the so-called Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
(FIRE) on November 26 and explained why it should not defend Dr. Adams in
this case. I have attached a copy of my letter. Greg Lukianoff, the
author of the FIRE letter, sent me a reply on December 3. His reply turns
on a sophistic interpretation of the phrase: "core political speech." I
said my daughter would retract her accusations if FIRE could point to any
"core political speech" (a phrase used by Mr. Lukianoff in his letter to
the UNCW administration) in the e-mail communications mentioned in her
complaints. Lukianoff illogically and ungrammatically claimed "core
political speech" means speech that is core because it is political in some
sense, and not political speech that is core because it addresses core
issues. I also said, in my letter to FIRE, that Dr. Adams violated the
"most basic principle in the ethics of his profession: put the education of
the student first." Mr. Lukianoff, in his reply, claimed that the
professional ethics of a university professor is a matter of "teaching
style." Calling a student abusive names, libeling and inciting threats
against her is a teaching style? I have taught philosophy at a number of
universities. My wife, Rosa's mother, is currently a UNCW professor of
philosophy and director of the University's Center for Teaching
Excellence. We immediately saw Dr. Adams' abusive letter to Rosa as a
violation of professional ethics. Mr. Lukianoff said he would not comment
on "these extremely subjective issues" and would not "adjudicate teaching
styles." Ethics, in his opinion, is a "style" and a matter of "subjective"
choice in the "marketplace of ideas." This fits with his claim that
definitions of rationality are "arbitrary." He denies that ethics, which
includes professional ethics, can have a rational foundation. FIRE claims
to oppose postmodernist and multiculturalist speech codes. But Mr.
Lukianoff's letter shares the antirationalist, subjectivist and moral
relativist presuppositions of these speech-code advocates.
FIRE has recently focused its attention on my daughter's request to see
some of Dr. Adams' e-mail letters as public business under the Public
Records Law of the State of North Carolina. Behind the facade of a defense
of free speech, FIRE has entered on a campaign to deny the public its
democratic right to hear the speech of its public employees. The right to
hear such speech is a free speech right. The North Carolina Public Records
Law provides that the "public records and public information compiled by
the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the
property of the people." It further declares: "it is the policy of this
State that the people may obtain copies of their public records and public
information free or at minimal cost unless otherwise specifically provided
by law." Dr. Adams, a state employee, sent my daughter his libelous e-mail
letter from a state-owned e-mail address with the use of a state-owned
computer and state-owned computing facilities. Such e-mail letters are the
property of the people of this state.
FIRE continues to publish lies about my daughter. The articles it recently
posted on its web site falsely state that my daughter "blamed the United
States" for the terrorist attacks on September 11. Rosa wrote that the
terrorist assault "was a tragedy for the entire human species" and
"deserves from us unequivocal condemnation." She blamed the terrorists
when she referred to the "summary murder" of the victims as an "irrational
act that can only serve the cause of irrationality." She also blamed
reactionary US policies, which have financed, trained and armed socially
and politically reactionary forces, such as the Afghan "freedom fighters"
and the Taliban. Why does FIRE lie? FIRE also claims my daughter demanded
to see some of Dr. Adams' e-mail letters "so that she could sue him for
libel." This is false and FIRE knows it to be false. Why does FIRE
lie? I think my letter to FIRE explains why it has lied about this case
from the start.
---
November 26, 2001
Dr. Dennis J. Fuller
514 N. 25th Street
Wilmington, NC 28405
Greg Lukianoff
Director of Legal and Public Advocacy
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Inc.
437 Chestnut Street, Suite 200
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Dear Mr. Lukianoff:
I have obtained a copy of a letter you sent on November 8 to the Chancellor
of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington on the dispute between my
daughter, Rosa Fuller, a senior at UNCW, and a UNCW faculty member, Dr.
Mike Adams. I received this letter in consequence of a petition I
submitted to the University in accordance with the Public Records Act of
the State of North Carolina. I have also read other statements, said to
have come from representatives of your foundation, in the Washington Times,
US News and the Wilmington Morning Star.
I believe your defense of Dr. Adams, instead of my daughter, is the result
of false pretenses, fallacious arguments, and a partisan misrepresentation
of the facts. No representative of FIRE has ever contacted my
daughter. You have not asked to hear and you have not heard my daughter's
side in this dispute. Why? Does FIRE always choose sides in a dispute on
the basis of only some of the facts and the dubious testimony of only one
of the interested parties?
Your letter repeats some of the lies and falsifications uttered by Dr.
Adams and his few defenders. You impose a radical interpretation on my
daughter's actions and then falsely represent her motives. I invite you to
participate with me in a temperate examination of the facts in this case.
You declare, in your letter, that Dr. Adams expressed his "personal
disapproval" of Rosa's statement on the September 11 terrorist assault in
an e-mail response he sent her. Name-calling, a primitive argumentum ad
hominem, like tomato-throwing and foot-stomping, is certainly a mode of
"personal disapproval." But then, on the next page, you insist Dr. Adams'
"role was only to disagree strongly with [Rosa's] opinions." You conclude
that Rosa "seeks to prosecute those who disagree with her." This
presentation of the case is absolutely false. Dr. Adams addressed none of
the opinions in Rosa's statement. He offered no criticism of her
ideas. He neither agreed nor disagreed with her specific conclusions. He
submitted no statement or defense of his own opinions, if he has any. He,
as a University professor, instead unprofessionally reviled Rosa, a
student, with a series of abusive names. He proposed no argument in
support of these names. What did Rosa expect? She wanted and expected a
"rational discussion" of the issues, as she said in her letter. She hoped
she would receive a vigorous criticism of her ideas from Dr. Adams. She
would have welcomed an exchange of antagonistic theories and explanations
with him. This is why she sent him a copy of her statement. She well
understood that Dr. Adams identifies with the radical right in the
Republican Party. She had a course in criminal justice with him last
year. Dr. Adams uses the courses he teaches and his University office to
display his support of partisan positions and Republican candidates, in
violation of professional ethics and the policy of the Board of Governors
of the University of North Carolina. (This is particularly egregious
behavior in a criminal justice professor. The criminal justice system is
supposed to enforce the law regardless of partisan political
interests.) His office door is plastered with partisan posters and
banners. He has a conflict of interest. As a University professor, his
primary interest is supposed to be the education of each and every
University student. As a political partisan, his interest is the victory
of particular candidates and particular policies. He refuses to keep these
interests separate. He lets his interest in Republican candidates and
ultraconservative policies interfere with his primary responsibilities as
an educator. He tries to hide this conflict of interest behind free-speech
rhetoric. He evidently has no idea his status in the University puts
limitations on his free speech in his relations with his students. His
e-mail letter to Rosa exhibits how he lets his partisanship shunt his
professional duties aside in favor of his political interests.
Why did Dr. Adams call Rosa abusive names, and offer no criticism of her
ideas and no defense of past or current US policies or actions? I believe
Rosa rightly said, the "intent of such a message is intimidation and
defamation." Dr. Adams' letter to Rosa violates the most basic principle
in the ethics of his profession: put the education of the student
first. No University professor should ever write in a letter to a student
that her statement is "undeserving of serious consideration," particularly
in the case of political discourse. He should either critically evaluate
and correct her statement, if possible, or ignore it. A professor should
never tell a student her "claimed interest in promoting rational discussion
is dishonest." He should enter into a rational discussion with her and
rationally correct her ideas, if possible, or keep silent. No professor
should ever call a student's speech "dishonest," "bigoted,"
"unintelligent," and "immature," unless he also offers an argument in
support of each one of these names. A student can learn from arguments,
but not from abusive names. A University professor's primary
responsibility is the education of his students. This professional and
ethical responsibility puts limits on a professor's free speech in his
relations with each and every student.
What would Rosa have done if Dr. Adams had sent her a "strongly" worded
criticism of her ideas, which concluded, on the basis of some argument,
that her statement is "unintelligent," "bigoted," and so on? She would
have immediately entered into a debate with him. Who is Rosa? She is a
20-year-old senior, a student in the UNCW Honors Scholars Program, with a
major in mathematics and a 3.97 grade average. She has already completed
her 105-page Honors paper, "Representations of the Rotation Group in
Particle Physics." She plans to attend graduate school in
philosophy. Both her parents hold doctorates in this area. One of her
heroes is Socrates, another target of "free speech" advocates. She first
read a Platonic dialogue when she was 12-years old. A Platonist in
mathematics and philosophy, she is skilled in the logic of refutation. She
has come to believe, and she is not alone in this belief, that Plato's
ideal republic, where philosophy rules, is a socialist society. Rosa is a
member of no political group. As you can read in her statement, she is a
humanist. She believes the unity of humanity is possible only on the basis
of our common rationality. She opposes identity politics, divisive
formulations of multiculturalism and the sophistry of postmodernism. She
generally opposes speech codes, but understands that the communication of a
threat is a crime, and a college teacher is not free to berate a student,
with the use of college property, and espouse partisan politics in a
college classroom.
You claim Rosa "received a torrent of criticism from students, faculty, and
the public for her words" and an "overwhelmingly negative response."
Really? Why do you believe this? The fact is the opposite. Of the
seventeen faculty members, students and others to whom Rosa originally sent
her statement, she received a negative reply from exactly one faculty
member, Dr. Adams, and then a few other negative replies from his tiny
coterie of present and past College Republicans. When a member of this
coterie anonymously sent the entire UNCW faculty and staff a copy of Rosa's
statement, she received exactly one more negative reply: an illiterate,
profane and abusive letter from an untenured instructor. Some
torrent. Many faculty and staff members who received this anonymous e-mail
copy wrote Rosa and praised her courage, intelligence and initiative. You
endorse the myth of the "torrent of criticism" in order to falsify Rosa's
motivation when she accused exactly four people, two faculty members and
two students, of violations of UNCW policies or criminal statutes. (Note:
Rosa filed no charges with either the University or the campus police
against "those who disagree with her" and sent her these disagreements in
non-abusive and non-threatening communications. How do you fit this fact
into your interpretation?)
You insist that the University is guilty of "complicity" with Rosa "in
punishing core political speech." This, you rather amusingly add, "should
be self-evident." You hope it's self-evident, because you have no other
evidence. Here is my answer: if you can point to any, yes any, "core
political speech" in Dr. Adams' response to Rosa's statement, or any, yes
any, "core political speech" in the responses by Krysten Scott, James Ryan
Price or Edwin H. Wagensellar, my daughter will retract all her accusations
and send each one of these people and the University an apology. Do you
really want us to believe these rants and threats yielded the "failure of
[Rosa's] arguments in free and open discourse"? Rant is not
refutation. As Rosa said: "Name-calling is the nullification of
discourse." I believe I have called your bluff.
You declare Rosa "has no legitimate legal claim on the basis of
intimidation, defamation, false representation, or threats." Rosa never
accused Dr. Adams of "threats." On September 20, she complained to the
University that Dr. Adams had sent her an abusive e-mail message in
violation of the University's Computing Resource Use Policy, which
prohibits the transmission, with the use of the University's computing
facilities and services, of "materials that are libelous or defamatory in
nature." Such materials include "information" that infringes on "the
rights of another person, that is abusive or threatening, [or]
profane." The policy defines "libelous" as "provably false, unprivileged
statements that do demonstrated injury to an individual's . . .
reputation." When Dr. Adams first read Rosa's statement, on the morning of
September 17, he immediately contacted the secretary of the North Carolina
Federation of College Republicans, a UNCW student named Krysten Scott. He
sent her a frantic series of e-mail messages at 9:03 a.m., 9:06 a.m. and
9:11 a.m. We believe Scott then forwarded Rosa's statement to current and
former members of the College Republicans. She likely included either Dr.
Adams' name-calling response or her own threatening response, which she
sent Rosa at 9:38 a.m. Dr. Adams sent his abusive e-mail letter to Rosa at
9:45 a.m. He then continued his obsessive contact with Scott with three
more e-mail messages at 9:57 a.m., 9:59 a.m. and at 12:33 p.m. We believe
these facts indicate that Dr. Adams sent his false representation of Rosa
to Scott. We believe Scott then acted on his false representation and sent
Rosa an abusive and threatening e-mail communication. After Rosa received
the list of e-mail letters Dr. Adams had sent on September 17, she accused
Dr. Adams, on October 29, of "libel in violation of the University's
Computing Resource Use Policy." When Dr. Adams "forwarded his
[name-calling and defamatory] response to a number of people in his address
book" (as his attorney, Charlton L. Allen, wrote in an internet magazine),
with the use of the University's computing facilities, he libeled her. We
would welcome the opportunity to prove that Rosa is not "dishonest,"
"bigoted," "unintelligent," and "immature."
Your assertion that Rosa has no legitimate claim she received threats from
two students, Krysten Scott and James Ryan Price, is incompetent. Rosa
filed a report with the UNCW campus police on the e-mail threats these
students sent her. She wanted these threats on the record. She left it to
the professional judgment of the police whether these threats warranted an
investigation or any other appropriate police action. The investigating
officer decided he should talk with the two students, on the basis of the
facts, the law and his own professional judgment. He met with the students
and reported to me they exhibited no sign they intended to act on their
threats. He therefore decided not to arrest them. But, he said, if they
repeated their threats or exhibited any other sign they intended to act on
the threats they had made, he would arrest them. You evidently believe
such statements as: "you deserve to be dragged down the street by the
hair"; you "should be hit by a baseball bat TWICE", amount to "core
political speech" and "discussing controversial topics." The
professionally competent authorities judged otherwise.
You baldly assert that Rosa's petition to inspect the e-mail messages Dr.
Adams sent to any address, from his University address, with the use of the
University's central computing facilities and services, from September 15
to September 18, as public business, in accordance with the Public Records
Law of the State of North Carolina, "cannot be taken seriously and is a
perversion of the law." What is your argument? You provide none. As
Hegel observed, one assertion is worth as much as another. Dr. Adams, a
State employee, used a State-owned computer and a State-owned computing
system to send Rosa his abusive e-mail letter. The Public Records Law
provides that, with certain exceptions (student records and personnel
files), these e-mail communications are public records, subject to public
inspection. You do offer a consideration, which you believe should have
led to the immediate rebuff of Rosa's public records petition: she had a
bad motivation. You assert: she wanted "to punish students and faculty
[members] for exercising their Free Speech rights." The law anticipates
this circumvention of its provisions. It provides that "No person
requesting to inspect and examine public records, or to obtain copies
thereof, shall be required to disclose the purpose or motive for the
request" (North Carolina General Statutes: 132-6 [b]). Rosa had no wish to
punish any party. She wanted the information she believed she needed to
stop the use of the University's computing system to send her abusive,
libelous and threatening e-mail messages.
Did the University violate Dr. Adams' "right to privacy" when it inspected
his e-mail messages? As you are well aware, he has no such right in this
case. The North Carolina Public Records Act limits the "right of privacy"
in relation to public records and provides no specific exception or
exemption in the case of any State employee who uses State facilities to
send any "private" or personal communication. The University's Computer
Resource Use Policy explicitly states that "users do not have an
expectation of privacy regarding their uses of the system, and the issuance
of confidential passwords or specific [e-mail] addresses should not be
understood to provide an expectation of privacy." The University provides
its "central computing facilities and services for the instructional,
research, and administrative computing needs of the
university." Therefore, "access to the university's computing facilities
and resources . . . is a privilege," not a right. This privilege carries
no right of privacy. The Policy also states, "information contained on
UNCW equipment and in UNCW accounts, including e-mail, if 'made or received
pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public
business by any agency of North Carolina,' unless subject to specific
statutory exceptions and exemptions, may be subject to inspection under the
Public Records Law of the State of North Carolina." The Policy warns every
user: your use of a University e-mail address carries no expectation of
privacy and your e-mail communications "may be subject to
inspection." Every owner and provider of computing systems, every
university, government and private business, which provides such systems,
has a similar policy. Surely, FIRE would not argue that the owners of
computing systems have no property right to limit the "right of privacy" of
the users of these systems.
Whose free speech has been threatened in this dispute? Rosa sent an e-mail
letter on September 15, to seventeen people, which said the September 11
terrorist assault "was a tragedy for the entire human species" and
"deserves from us unequivocal condemnation." She also advocated a
"discussion" of the causes of this crime, and pointed to past and present
US policies in the Middle East and Central Asia. She blamed the terrorists
when she referred to the "summary murder" of the victims, as an "irrational
act that can only serve the cause of irrationality." She also blamed
reactionary US policies, which have financed, trained and armed socially
and politically reactionary forces, such as the Afghan "freedom fighters"
and the Taliban. She then noted that the reactionary terrorist attacks
would be used to distract attention from (1) the undemocratic and
unconstitutional installation, by the US Supreme Court, of George W. Bush,
in the office of US president, and (2) the continuation of the militaristic
and imperialistic policies that likely led to the terrorist assault. She
ended her statement with this conditional: "If you support open, unbiased,
democratic discussion of all the facts, please forward this e-mail to
friends and acquaintances both on and off campus." Dr. Adams and a few of
his Republican students exhibited no interest in such "core political
speech" but reacted with abusive, threatening, profane or libelous e-mail
messages, in violation of the law and the University's Computing Resource
Use Policy. The intent of such messages, as Rosa said, is
intimidation. It partially worked: Rosa removed her name and address from
her statement on a student-sponsored web site; she removed her name and
address from the student directory; she removed information on her family
members from her web page; she purchased self-defense items; and her
friends provided her with a body guard as she moved around campus. Rosa
acted to protect her safety when she filed complaints with the University
and the campus police. Dr. Adams, on the other hand, with the assistance
of FIRE and his attorney, has carried on a national publicity campaign, in
newspapers and magazines, on the internet and television, which is supposed
to portray him as a conservative martyr in the cause of free
speech. Republican students have sent incoherent and semiliterate letters
to the student newspaper and an internet magazine, which continue to
misrepresent Rosa's statement, actions and motivations. Whose free speech
has been "chilled"? Who has practiced "self-censorship" from a "fear of
reprisal for discussing controversial topics"?
Despite the obfuscations in your letter, Rosa's complaints and the
University's actions have not targeted "protected speech and academic
freedom." The communication of a threat is not protected speech. It is a
crime. The e-mail communication of abusive epithets, with no supportive
argument, aimed at a student by a professor, is not protected by academic
freedom. It is a violation of this university's computing policy. Rosa's
action has chilled the communication of threats and abusive names on her
campus. This is hardly "every communication" at UNCW. Academic freedom
has no relevance in this case. This freedom has to do with academic
pursuits in academic disciplines, not with nonacademic speech.
FIRE has been on the wrong side in this case from the start. On October 1,
the Washington Times, on the basis of false information supplied by Dr.
Adams and FIRE's executive director, Thor Halvorssen, reported that Dr.
Adams had been charged with "harassment" and "contacted by university
police," because he supported US "intervention in Afghanistan" in
statements he made "behind closed doors to a female graduate
student." This student is supposed to have "complained that [Dr. Adams']
position made her 'uncomfortable.'" The facts: Dr. Adams was not charged
with harassment but with having sent an abusive and libelous e-mail letter
to an undergraduate, in violation of professional ethics and the
University's computing policy. He was not contacted by the campus
police. He did not state his support of US intervention in
Afghanistan. He did not discuss this matter with Rosa behind closed
doors. Rosa has not said Dr. Adams' position on US intervention made her
feel "uncomfortable," partly because Dr. Adams has not yet publicly
declared his position on this intervention. Both FIRE and Dr. Adams have
falsified the facts in this case. Why? The facts defeat Dr. Adams. He
needs to turn this case into a story of his harassment by the "tyranny of
the touchy-feely," in Mr. Halvorssen's mordant words. He has to be seen as
the victim of politically correct university administrators who "are
terrified of being insensitive to certain views or certain
minorities." Hence: Rosa is falsely turned into a female graduate student,
who has been made to feel uncomfortable, by the words of a male professor,
uttered behind closed doors, and who vindictively charges him with
(sexual?) harassment.
Dr. Adams caused his attorney, Charlton L. Allen, to publish a similarly
fictitious story in an article in an internet magazine
(FrontPageMagazine.com) on October 25. Mr. Allen wrote: "Dr. Adams'
simple act of proffering his contrarian view infuriated Rosa and her mother
[Dr. Patricia Turrisi, an associate professor of philosophy and director of
the UNCW Center for Teaching Excellence]. Their reaction was typical of
the militant left when confronted with their own hypocrisy: they attempted
to silence the opinions of those who disagree, not unlike the Taliban." I
hardly need repeat: Adams' abusive epithets and the students' threats are
not "opinions." "First," Mr. Allen tells us, "when Rosa received negative
feedback from individuals who received Dr. Adams' forwarded email, she
attempted to file charges with the University Police Department, claiming
that the often-heated responses created a 'hostile environment' that rose
to the level of communicating threats." Rosa never used the words "hostile
environment," despite Mr. Allen's quotes. But these words, like the words
"harassment" and "uncomfortable," have come to be associated with charges
of sexual harassment. Mr. Allen then tells a series of lies, which he
surely obtained from the inventive imagination of Dr. Adams, "a source with
the university": (1) Mr. Allen falsely claims that Rosa and Dr. Turrisi
"have contacted the chair of Dr. Adams' department and demanded a full
investigation of Dr. Adams." This never happened. When Rosa first
received e-mail threats, Dr. Turrisi immediately contacted Dr. Adams'
department chair. She asked him to find out what Dr. Adams had sent the
threatening students, and whether Dr. Adams would help us stop these
threats. This was Dr. Turrisi's first, last and only involvement in this
case. (2) Mr. Allen falsely claims that Dr. Turrisi "maintains that it is
her intention to file a lawsuit for defamation and pursuant to the Freedom
of Information Act, to seek access to Dr. Adams' correspondence." Dr.
Turrisi has never said she intended to sue Dr. Adams. She has never asked
to see any of Dr. Adams' correspondence. (3) Mr. Allen falsely claims
that, "several years ago," Dr. Turrisi "demanded the university discipline
a colleague who disagreed with her regarding the general statutory
principle for several degrees of rape." This also never happened. It is,
as I said in a letter to Front Page magazine, a "complete fabrication." But
this lie does confront us once more with Dr. Adams' obsessive fascination
with sexual politics. The facts defeat Dr. Adams. Therefore, he and his
defenders tell lie after lie.
Dr. Adams appeared on the "fair and balanced" Fox News Channel on November
9. An interviewer asked him what "specifically" he had been "accused
of." He answered: "I guess conspiring to hurt someone's feelings or
something like that. I can't figure it out." Rosa never said Dr. Adams
hurt her feelings. I think she finds the idea humorous. Dr. Adams, a
criminal justice professor, pretends he cannot understand what Rosa has
alleged: namely, (1) he sent her an abusive e-mail letter, with the use of
the University's computing system, and (2) he sent either the same letter
or substantially the same letter to at least one other student (who acted
on his false representation) and, therefore, libeled Rosa, in violation of
the University's Computing Resource Use Policy. He and his defenders
cannot admit this is what he is alleged to have done. They pretend he has
been charged with a violation of a politically correct speech code, which
protects the "feelings" of some "historically oppressed groups." The UNCW
computing policy, on the contrary, equally protects the rights of every
individual "person" who rightfully uses the UNCW computing system. Dr.
Adams continued his answer on Fox News with this "hypothetical": "If I
were a feminist professor and I had offended a male student, is there any
chance that the man could have said you hurt my feelings, let me into that
feminist professor's e-mail account. It's never happened before, and I
doubt it would ever happen." (A banner on Dr. Adams' office door reads:
"So You're a Feminist. Isn't That Cute.") Dr. Adams believes he is a
member of a newly oppressed group: anti-feminist male professors. I fear
Rosa has hurt his feelings.
When an interviewer on Fox News mentioned a letter from me, Rosa's father,
Dr. Adams said: "Oh, her father, that's interesting. Well, she claimed in
the original letter, we live in a racist and chauvinist society, why is
Daddy speaking for her?" (Note: Rosa never said we live in a racist and
chauvinist society. She said, "innocent Arab and Muslim Americans,
including children, are being attacked and threatened in the chauvinist,
racist fervor stirred by the war-mongering US media.") Evidently, Dr.
Adams believes the word "chauvinist" always means male-chauvinist in the
feminist sense. He has a one-track mind. Also, he once more proves he has
no appreciation of the difference in the status in a university between a
professor and a student. He has an attorney "speaking for" him. He refers
reporters to FIRE: "Contacted on campus this week, Dr. Adams referred
questions to . . . Mr. Halvorssen." (Wilmington Star News, November 3,
2001) Yet he, and his band of College Republicans, believe it is somehow
wrong when Rosa's parents defend her. He said, on Fox News, he regrets he
"didn't unload on" Rosa more than he did. Does he have any idea of his
proper role, as a professor, in the University community? It seems not.
On the basis of the facts and refutations set forth in this letter, I, and
my daughter, Rosa, ask the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to
switch its support in this dispute from Dr. Adams to Rosa.. We believe
FIRE should:
1. Notify Dr. Adams it no longer supports him.
2. Notify the media it has switched its support from Dr. Adams to
Rosa. (FIRE should state it understands that abusive, profane, libelous
and threatening communications can chill free speech as effectively as any
speech code.)
3. Notify UNCW that it understands Dr. Adams violated professional
ethics and a legitimate computing use policy when he sent Rosa his abusive
e-mail letter. (FIRE should state it understands that professional ethics
puts proper limitations on the speech a college professor can use in his
communications with his students. FIRE should also state it understands
that the owner of a computer system, as a matter of property rights, can
properly restrict both the "free speech" and the "right of privacy" of the
users of this system.)
4. Notify the UNCW campus police that it understands the investigating
officer used appropriate professional judgment when he interviewed the two
students who sent Rosa threatening e-mail letters. Also FIRE should notify
the UNCW Dean of Students that it understands he exercised proper judgment
when he interviewed these same two students.
5. Affirm that Rosa committed no wrong when she filed a police report
on the two students who threatened her or when she alleged that these two
students and two faculty members violated the University's computing use
policy.
6. Apologize to Rosa for the false information it has supplied the
media on the issues and personalities in this case.
7. Repudiate the falsifications, sophistries and fantasies Dr. Adams
has proffered in his desperate defense of his professionally irresponsible
abuse of a student.
We hope FIRE will execute the actions we have proposed. Its actions and
statements heretofore have belied its supposedly nonpartisan defense of
individual rights in education. The time has come when FIRE should redress
the wrong it has done my daughter in this case.
Sincerely,
Dr. Dennis J. Fuller
Cc: James Leutze, Chancellor
John Cavanaugh, Provost and Vice Chancellor
Harold M. White, Jr., University Counsel
Terrance M. Curran, Dean of Students
Mimi Cunningham, University Relations
Wayne D. Howell, University Police
Franklin L. Block, Board of Trustees
Alfred P. Carlton, Jr., Board of Trustees
Larry J. Dagenhart, Board of Trustees
Margaret B. Dardess, Board of Trustees
Jeff D. Etheridge, Jr., Board of Trustees
Charles D. Evans, Board of Trustees
Lee Brewer Garrett, Board of Trustees
Owen G. Kenan, Board of Trustees
Katherine Bell Moore, Board of Trustees
Harry E. Payne, Jr., Board of Trustees
Linda Upperman Smith, Board of Trustees
Dennis Worley, Board of Trustees
Alan Charles Kors, FIRE, Director
Harvey A. Silverglate, FIRE, Director
Thor L. Halvorssen, FIRE, Executive Director
David Brudnoy, FIRE, Board of Advisors
T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr., FIRE, Board of Advisors
Candace de Russy, FIRE, Board of Advisors
Benjamin F. Hammond, FIRE, Board of Advisors
Elizabeth L. Haynes, FIRE, Board of Advisors
Nat Hentoff, FIRE, Board of Advisors
Roy Innis, FIRE, Board of Advisors
Wendy Kaminer, FIRE, Board of Advisors
Woody Kaplan, FIRE, Board of Advisors
Leonard Liggio, FIRE, Board of Advisors
Herbert London, FIRE, Board of Advisors
Michael Meyers, FIRE, Board of Advisors
Daphne Patai, FIRE, Board of Advisors
Virginia Postrel, FIRE, Board of Advisors
Milton Rosenberg, FIRE, Board of Advisors
John R. Searle, FIRE, Board of Advisors
Ricky Silberman, FIRE, Board of Advisors
Christina Hoff Sommers, FIRE, Board of Advisors
Kenny J. Williams, FIRE, Board of Advisors
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
