Hanbury's OP-ED Piece Rebutted - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jul 28, 2005

RE: Hanbury's OP-ED Piece Rebutted

Date: Jul 28, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:
And the only thing more obnoxious than a professional conservative is a hit and run smear statement from a pseudonym-clad message board poster.

Irony? Speciosity? It doesn't matter, because it's time for...

Date: Jul 28, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

And the only thing more obnoxious than a professional conservative is a hit and run smear statement from a pseudonym-clad message board poster.

The far right? The far left? There's nothing obnoxious about saying that extremism is distasteful.

Date: Jul 29, 2005

Mickey M. wrote:

The far right? The far left? There's nothing obnoxious about saying that extremism is distasteful.

This is the mantra for feel-gooders everywhere. What you really meant to say was "Since I've never cared about any issue to an extreme extent, I cannot identify with anyone who has extreme views."

Date: Jul 29, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

Your Christianity argument is specious. No outward act defines a Christian...

.

Umm, DT, my whole point was that your argument was illogical (I was merely giving an example of your own argument). You stated very clearly that you looked at people's actions to illustrate their beliefs. I gave you but one example of where beliefs and actions don't mesh. I happened to pick a hot-button issue (religion) which I knew might sidetrack you, but the point is the same. And then you reinforced my point by your statement above ("No outward act defines a Christian"). This is in direct opposition to your previous statement "actions illustrate beliefs."

Just trying to point out the holes in your argument (and, yes, it was a slow day for me, which is the only reason I posted!).

Truth

Date: Jul 29, 2005

Emma wrote:

Nothing in life is black and white - Kate Green introduces the "grays", thank goodness. I will never accept that her so-called "credentials" give her less of a viewpoint than the 79% per cent who take and pass the LSAT and call themselves attorneys. I read for this test, and it is a joke.

Certainly the opinion of a sympathetic left winger who took the class. Although she was right on the point about how difficult it is to divine the intent of the framers clearly on any subject, she enjoyed quite a rep while I was in Poli Sci at USM.

I seem to recall several books being thrown at students who expressed less-than-liberal views, amongst others, as well as gratutious use of the f-word, and verbal harassment of students for petty offenses in class.

My favorite was a good friend who worked with KG on a senior project (any more specific might tip their name). The student went into the hospital, and KG apparently forced him to check out to keep an appointment to update her on research. Then, at the banquet where the student was honored for their work, KG ditched him to go drinking with another student.

She's the bane of the department. It has NOTHING to do with ideology and everything to do with attitude and professionalism.

Date: Jul 29, 2005

How did she come to get one of the mid-year raises SFT handed out shortly after taking office? Hers was well-publicized in the media after the news outlets filed the freedom of information request.

Date: Jul 29, 2005

litup wrote:

How did she come to get one of the mid-year raises SFT handed out shortly after taking office? Hers was well-publicized in the media after the news outlets filed the freedom of information request.

And your point would be . . .???

Date: Jul 29, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

And your point would be . . .???

I think "litup" was asking why KG got one of SFT's "meretricious" raises if she was such a godawfully bad teacher.

BTW, O Henry is right. This thread needs to be spritzed down pretty liberally with FLIT.

Date: Jul 29, 2005

Well put, Steven. I think the most common point of view for a professor in philosophy or poli sci is the opposite of whatever the student puts forth. They are looking for reasoned debate. In Mississippi, of course, this is likely to be a liberal point of view.

Date: Jul 29, 2005

Invictus wrote:

I think "litup" was asking why KG got one of SFT's "meretricious" raises if she was such a godawfully bad teacher.

BTW, O Henry is right. This thread needs to be spritzed down pretty liberally with FLIT.

So, Shelby gives raises based on merit now? I recall many discussions on this board about how unfair the raise system is at USM (midyear raises, determination of merit raises, MIDAS program, etc.). I guess that when it serves your purpose, you'll say that Thames rewards merit.

Date: Jul 29, 2005

View from a Distance wrote:

Well put, Steven. I think the most common point of view for a professor in philosophy or poli sci is the opposite of whatever the student puts forth. They are looking for reasoned debate. In Mississippi, of course, this is likely to be a liberal point of view.

Why not just present the facts and let students draw their own conclusions? Or are students too stupid to draw conclusions without the guidance of a sage professor?

Date: Jul 29, 2005

Invictus wrote:

stephen judd wrote: And your point would be . . .??? I think "litup" was asking why KG got one of SFT's "meretricious" raises if she was such a godawfully bad teacher. BTW, O Henry is right. This thread needs to be spritzed down pretty liberally with FLIT.

No, Invictus, I was recalling that another poster discovered that she's had two publications in the past decade or so. How do you get one of only 2 handfuls of raises designated "for deserving faculty"? That's how these few mid-year raises were presented by the powers that year.

Date: Jul 29, 2005

Kate signs her name to a letter, and suddenly she getting a personality attack. And, if you can't seriously backup your statements, you need to be careful about what you are posting. I thought that her points were well taken. Of course, I still hold the belief that anyone can become a lawyer - and becoming a lawyer does not give you instant brains.

I'm with Joker though, who would have thought that Hanbury would be the source of this thread???

Date: Jul 29, 2005

Tidy Bowl Man wrote:

View from a Distance wrote: Well put, Steven. I think the most common point of view for a professor in philosophy or poli sci is the opposite of whatever the student puts forth. They are looking for reasoned debate. In Mississippi, of course, this is likely to be a liberal point of view. Why not just present the facts and let students draw their own conclusions? Or are students too stupid to draw conclusions without the guidance of a sage professor?

Well, obviously the presentation of "facts" is the very point upon which opinion and interpretation rests. If simple presentation of the facts in any case were all there was, we would have no disputes about the nature of history and the motivations and actions of those who made it. "Facts" don't exist as isolated events - they exist in context . . . and so does their presentation. This presupposition is the source of the discourse we call debate and has been since well before Socrates.

Presenting the "facts" is exactly what lawyers do. At least the court system by its very nature accepts the fact that the presentation of "facts" must result from interpretation of "which" facts ate relevant or significant, and which are not. This is why we have a prosceution and a defense. If "facts" were so transparent, we would not need this kind of system. Nor would we need newspapers and reporters. Nor would we need "fact" finding committees to investigate the "facts" put forward by the objects of their investigation. Nor would we need historians.

Date: Jul 29, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

Tidy Bowl Man wrote: View from a Distance wrote: Well put, Steven. I think the most common point of view for a professor in philosophy or poli sci is the opposite of whatever the student puts forth. They are looking for reasoned debate. In Mississippi, of course, this is likely to be a liberal point of view. Why not just present the facts and let students draw their own conclusions? Or are students too stupid to draw conclusions without the guidance of a sage professor? Well, obviously the presentation of "facts" is the very point upon which opinion and interpretation rests. If simple presentation of the facts in any case were all there was, we would have no disputes about the nature of history and the motivations and actions of those who made it. "Facts" don't exist as isolated events - they exist in context . . . and so does their presentation. This presupposition is the source of the discourse we call debate and has been since well before Socrates. Presenting the "facts" is exactly what lawyers do. At least the court system by its very nature accepts the fact that the presentation of "facts" must result from interpretation of "which" facts ate relevant or significant, and which are not. This is why we have a prosceution and a defense. If "facts" were so transparent, we would not need this kind of system. Nor would we need newspapers and reporters. Nor would we need "fact" finding committees to investigate the "facts" put forward by the objects of their investigation. Nor would we need historians.

Not to mention that we don't even agree, in any specific case, exactly what constitutes a "fact."

Historians spend their lives investigating whether things that have been written or uttered about a figure in history, or events, are really "facts" or popular myth. So do most of the professions in our culture involved with knowlege. This is why what we perceive as being the "truth" of an age may change over time.

Date: Jul 29, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

Well, obviously the presentation of "facts" is the very point upon which opinion and interpretation rests. If simple presentation of the facts in any case were all there was, we would have no disputes about the nature of history and the motivations and actions of those who made it. "Facts" don't exist as isolated events - they exist in context . . . and so does their presentation. This presupposition is the source of the discourse we call debate and has been since well before Socrates. Presenting the "facts" is exactly what lawyers do. At least the court system by its very nature accepts the fact that the presentation of "facts" must result from interpretation of "which" facts ate relevant or significant, and which are not. This is why we have a prosceution and a defense. If "facts" were so transparent, we would not need this kind of system. Nor would we need newspapers and reporters. Nor would we need "fact" finding committees to investigate the "facts" put forward by the objects of their investigation. Nor would we need historians.

This is all too confusing, Stephen. Why can't we just have our "leaders" (president, governor, major, family doctor and minister) tell us the "facts" and how to interpret the facts? All of this questioning and thinking gives me a headache. Just believing is a lot easier.

Date: Jul 29, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

Mickey M. wrote: There's nothing obnoxious about saying that extremism is distasteful.

Doubting Thomas wrote: This is the mantra for feel-gooders everywhere. What you really meant to say was "Since I've never cared about any issue to an extreme extent, I cannot identify with anyone who has extreme views."

Once again you jump to an unfounded conclusion. My convictions run very deep. And they are based on years of experience and hard knocks. Those convictions rest neither at the far right nor the far left. It is my opinion that both of those extremist camps contain some rather dangerous elements. And why in the h*ll should I identify with you just because you profess to subscribe to extreme views?

Date: Jul 29, 2005

Back to the original thread---

Jack Hanbury came to USM for one purpose only--to do the bidding of SFT. He knew absolutely nothing about academics. Forget about the G/S fiasco. Ask anyone who served on the handbook committee about him. SFT brought him in to help fire people. And Hanbury was willing to do it.

Date: Jul 29, 2005

Mickey M. wrote:

Once again you jump to an unfounded conclusion. My convictions run very deep. And they are based on years of experience and hard knocks. Those convictions rest neither at the far right nor the far left. It is my opinion that both of those extremist camps contain some rather dangerous elements. And why in the h*ll should I identify with you just because you profess to subscribe to extreme views?

Extreme views are dangerous. I can't identify with those who have extreme views. Does this pretty much sum up your close-minded approach to life?

Date: Jul 29, 2005

litup wrote:

No, Invictus, I was recalling that another poster discovered that she's had two publications in the past decade or so. How do you get one of only 2 handfuls of raises designated "for deserving faculty"? That's how these few mid-year raises were presented by the powers that year.

I'll stand corrected, assuming that you have personally verified two assertions made by a "pseudonym-clad message board poster": (1) that KG has had only two publications since 1997 & (2) that she received a midyear raise. I haven't verified either & don't intend to. Ain't important to me, because it really isn't germane to the original thread here. Both assertions are more important in the character assassination game that's going on here than in actually evaluating the relative merits of Jack Hanbury's op-ed & Kate Green's rebuttal.

But jeez, "meretricious raise" is the best pun I've thunk up in at least the past 2 days...

Date: Jul 29, 2005

Instead of attacking my claims that Kate Green is not qualified to wear the "Expert in Constitutional Law" mantle, you attack my claims by taking statements out of context. Wherever you learned to argue, they surely must have told you that you cannot ignore facts just because they don't fit your need.

And by the way, stephen judd, if you truly believe that there are no such things as facts, I wonder if Glamser & Stringer really deserved to be terminated. I mean, the "facts" as you see them say that G&S were "in the right." While the "facts" told SFT that G&S were "in the wrong." Whose facts should I believe? I mean...(to paraphrase the eminent scholar Kate Green)...How am I to know what the founders of the academy intended to be the limits to academic freedom? You have your interpretation and I have mine.

Date: Jul 29, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

Instead of attacking my claims that Kate Green is not qualified to wear the "Expert in Constitutional Law" mantle, you attack my claims by taking statements out of context. Wherever you learned to argue, they surely must have told you that you cannot ignore facts just because they don't fit your need.

I'm violating Miss Information's rule just once on this...

DT, I don't think you bothered to read my post. I wasn't responding to you, unless you've also been posting as "litup."

As far as I can discern, there is only one context for your "facts" & that's character assassination. Other than that, your "arguments" are too inconsistent to be accurately evaluated. You seem to have an axe to grind. So why not tell us what it is? There may be a few trained psychologists around here who can help you with your problem.

Not being a trained psychologist, all I can suggest is that you quit skipping your meds.

Date: Jul 29, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

Instead of attacking my claims that Kate Green is not qualified to wear the "Expert in Constitutional Law" mantle, you attack my claims by taking statements out of context. Wherever you learned to argue, they surely must have told you that you cannot ignore facts just because they don't fit your need. And by the way, stephen judd, if you truly believe that there are no such things as facts, I wonder if Glamser & Stringer really deserved to be terminated. I mean, the "facts" as you see them say that G&S were "in the right." While the "facts" told SFT that G&S were "in the wrong." Whose facts should I believe? I mean...(to paraphrase the eminent scholar Kate Green)...How am I to know what the founders of the academy intended to be the limits to academic freedom? You have your interpretation and I have mine.

Wow!! We have a thread about a constitutional law debate that has been stretch and turned it into the "facts" in the case of G&S. Me thinks someone’s agenda is showing.

All we need now to complete this thread is a discussion of how this is damaging the image of the faculty in the community. Followed, of course, by the suggestion that the AAUP is the cause of all these "problems".

Date: Jul 29, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

And by the way, stephen judd, if you truly believe that there are no such things as facts, I wonder if Glamser & Stringer really deserved to be terminated. I mean, the "facts" as you see them say that G&S were "in the right." While the "facts" told SFT that G&S were "in the wrong." Whose facts should I believe.....How am I to know what the founders of the academy intended to be the limits to academic freedom?

D.T., I've been watching your arguments. You're way above your head on this thread. Your knowledge of the profession of academics seems to be as limited as my knowledge of proctology.

Date: Jul 29, 2005

Joker wrote:

All we need now to complete this thread is a discussion of how this is damaging the image of the faculty in the community.

Actually, that was in DT's very first post in this thread:

Doubting Thomas wrote:

Mr. Hanbury may be wrong, but Ms. Green's response makes faculty look like bitter know-it-all-know-nothings once again.

Date: Jul 29, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

Tidy Bowl Man wrote:
View from a Distance wrote: Well put, Steven. I think the most common point of view for a professor in philosophy or poli sci is the opposite of whatever the student puts forth. They are looking for reasoned debate. In Mississippi, of course, this is likely to be a liberal point of view. Why not just present the facts and let students draw their own conclusions? Or are students too stupid to draw conclusions without the guidance of a sage professor?

Well, obviously the presentation of "facts" is the very point upon which opinion and interpretation rests. If simple presentation of the facts in any case were all there was, we would have no disputes about the nature of history and the motivations and actions of those who made it. "Facts" don't exist as isolated events - they exist in context . . . and so does their presentation. This presupposition is the source of the discourse we call debate and has been since well before Socrates.
Presenting the "facts" is exactly what lawyers do. At least the court system by its very nature accepts the fact that the presentation of "facts" must result from interpretation of "which" facts ate relevant or significant, and which are not. This is why we have a prosceution and a defense. If "facts" were so transparent, we would not need this kind of system. Nor would we need newspapers and reporters. Nor would we need "fact" finding committees to investigate the "facts" put forward by the objects of their investigation. Nor would we need historians.

Stephen,

Someone once said, "If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the law is on your side, argue the law. And, if neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table with your fist."

Which group do you think DT and litup fall under?

Regards,
DJ

Date: Jul 29, 2005

Invictus wrote:

Actually, that was in DT's very first post in this thread

Invicutus, Count them again. D.T. (Doubting Thomas) has posted eight or nine times on this thread.

Date: Jul 29, 2005

Invictus wrote:

Actually, that was in DT's very first post in this thread

Invictus, you inclusion of the word "very" in the above sentence makes all the difference in the world. Please ignore my previous comment about D.T. posting eight or nine times on this thread. My careless.

Date: Jul 29, 2005

Invictus wrote:

Doubting Thomas wrote: Instead of attacking my claims that Kate Green is not qualified to wear the "Expert in Constitutional Law" mantle, you attack my claims by taking statements out of context. Wherever you learned to argue, they surely must have told you that you cannot ignore facts just because they don't fit your need. I'm violating Miss Information's rule just once on this... DT, I don't think you bothered to read my post. I wasn't responding to you, unless you've also been posting as "litup." As far as I can discern, there is only one context for your "facts" & that's character assassination. Other than that, your "arguments" are too inconsistent to be accurately evaluated. You seem to have an axe to grind. So why not tell us what it is? There may be a few trained psychologists around here who can help you with your problem. Not being a trained psychologist, all I can suggest is that you quit skipping your meds.

Invictus, I think DT was responding to Stephen Judd's earlier posts. It just happened to fall right below your response to litup.