FC: Univ of NC student's father replies to Politech: "abusive and libelous"

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Sat Dec 22 2001 - 10:30:55 PST

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: FCC wants to yank Kevin Mitnick's radio license"

    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" <denfulat_private>
    To: declanat_private
    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/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Dec 22 2001 - 11:58:28 PST