---

Doubting Thomas wrote [in part]: Should we be trying to affect a mode of thought that is 180 degrees against the thought process of the students' parent(s) or family?

Er--come again? wrote:  Could you clarify your position here? Are you suggesting that the university needs to be the agent of conserving whatever presuppositions a student brings to the university?  If so, isn't this suggestion antithetical to the realities of a university education? I've heard it said that education comes from the Latin educo, to lead out.  I've also read studies that indicate university education tends to change students' presuppositions permanently.  That is, university education tends to challenge and change students, often away from their families.  Thus, one of the salient features of a university education is, in fact, a change in thought process. So, are you saying that the university's changing a person's perceptions is universally wrong?  Or are you making a particular claim about something locally overlooked?

---

Kick:  To my knowledge, DT has not answered this post.  If s/he did, my apologies.  ECA

Invictus wrote:

---

So while the paragraph selected by DT is innocuous, the rest of the diatribe isn't. I'm done with this turkey. Stick a fork in it.

---

No interaction with any troll I can think of has ended on a pleasant note. The more a troll counts its losses, the more vocal and erratic it seems to get. It returns back to its cage and sulks. We try to keep them under control, but occasionally they do escape.

Er--come again? wrote:

---

Kick:  To my knowledge, DT has not answered this post.  If s/he did, my apologies.  ECA

---

You are correct. My response fell to the wayside in the recent fracas. I apologize.

Here's my approach, which will be viewed, I am sure, as quite insufficient. I present an apolitical view of my discipline. I make a point to keep my criticism balanced with respect to potential political views (or with respect to any two sides of an opinion-based issue), and I don't debate religion in my course, because it is not a religion course. My goal is for every student to walk out of my last class thinking "I don't know whether he's a Democrat or a Republican or what." I challenge students to question decisions made under both regimes by questioning the decisions and the factors that affect those decisions, not the political affiliation of the decision maker unless it is absolutely necessary. For instance, I might challenge students to question Reagan's decisions in Iran-Contra and immediately challenge them to question Clinton's dealings with the Chinese.

It is not always possible to maintain a perfectly even keel. I have read Stephen Judd's statement that students can choose professors with vastly different views which will, in turn, tend to balance that student's education. However, I think about the student who takes only one course in a given discipline (whether through curriculum design or choice) who walks away from a one-sided course with a biased view of that discipline. Are we doing that student an injustice? How many history majors are lost because they run into Professor X's course, and Professor X is a "flaming liberal" [only for instance]? Or how many economics majors are lost because Professor Y rails against the "stupid" policies under Jimmy Carter (because Reagan had it right all along)[another example]?

I am uncomfortable assuming that young minds need to be molded and shaped by those of us who are members of the professorate. If we are truly teaching students "how" to think, then we should be demonstrating those methods on a wide and balanced array of topics, not just the ones we have passionate feelings about. I am uncomfortable when conversation turns to "give them a liberal viewpoint, because it's likely the only liberal viewpoint they'll ever hear." Giving them a liberal viewpoint at every opportunity will serve to do one of two things: It will make them liberal or it will make them hate liberals. It will not make them think a whole lot more than a balanced offering would.

I would much prefer "Here's what Group A thinks, and here are their stated reasons. Here's what Group B thinks, and here are their stated reasons. Can we deconstruct each group's thoughts vis-a-vis their stated reasons? What do you think about Group A and Group B's views?" to "Group B is obviously correct. Anybody who believes what Group A says is corrupt [or stupid, or uncaring, or illogical]." Under the second alternative, most students will adopt the professor's views and regurgitate them on an exam or in a paper, take their grade, and get out of the course. The pressure to please the professor is just too great to allow ourselves to lead students into this trap.

So there it is. My view. I think we're paid to teach students how to think, not what to think. I am sure many will disagree with me, and that is, of course, their right.

Doubting Thomas wrote:

---

No, Invictus, I am not trolling. I am raising some issues that are apparently too difficult for the bulk of the posters here to grasp. My first point in the thread was that Kate Green's response was fueled by her passions and biases and not by facts. She made claims that (I am sure) she believes to be true; however, she did not provide enough specifics to support her claims that JH is an idiot. Further, she makes the outright ludicrous remark that JH would be welcome to sit through her classes in constitutional law. When I stated my baseline opinion (questioning KG's credentials in offering her critique), I was attacked for not providing facts or specifics. I then did so in a subsequent post. I find it amusing that the message board community here assembled elevates KG (as well as other "favorite" posters) to champion status through her opinion-heavy (and fact-lean) op-ed letter-writing but demands more from new posters on the board. Note this as Double Standard #1: Those who do not toe the message board line play by a much stricter standard than those who simply say "SFT is the devil and JH, AD, MD, KM, and LM are his minions." If you expect anyone to use facts and logical argument, then you should force everyone to do so. No opinions presented as fact. No argument without documentation. No allowance for who the poster is or where they work or what their opinion is. When I was attacked for suggesting that KG might not have a dominant position with respect to constitutional law when compared to JH (because of their respective credentials), I was attacked again for questioning the authority and motives of one who, according to one poster, has done "so much" for USM. This sounds like the same type of reasoning that SFT's supporters use when lifting him up. No specifics were given regarding KG's contributions. Am I just supposed to take the poster's word that KG is a valuable member of the USM community wo is beyond reproach? Again, this is an example of Double Standard #1. Then, I was attacked vis-a-vis the "conservatives are evil" movement that permeates this board at times. I had made no statement about conservatism or liberalism. Reference Mickey M.'s first post. Call this Double Standard #2: If something can be remotely tied to conservatism (through whatever ends justify the means), then it will be attacked and destroyed. [Corollary: Liberalism is good. Always.] While I had made no real issue of politics at this point, I was awash in a wave of baseless criticism for doing so. Then, Stephen Judd interjected a thoughtful comment regarding argument, point of view, and thoughtful discussion that, though I fundamentally disagree with it, provided a well-thought-out argument. I am considering opening a can of worms with him, though it will have to follow this post. Then truth4usm/AH decided she wanted to take a portion of my argument out of context and try to use it against me. Double Standard #3: Use whatever dirty tricks necessary to put down the opposition but demand fair treatment when they rebut. Then I was labeled a troll and was hit with Flit. Nice. An opinionated person who provides facts and logic (see Left ASAP's post...thanks, by the way, for the response) gets the usual troll treatment. "Graduate of Honkeytonk U" raised some specific claims to which there was no response. Is it OK to throw books at students for any reason? Is is OK to use the f-word in class as a matter of course? Nobody bothered to respond to those claims. Then "litup" made a point that was totally missed by the collective mind here. At this point, I figured that the groupthink machine was in full effect. I knew it was going to the dogs when Strephen Judd told a poster that "we don't always agree on what a fact is" or some such nonsense. The qualifications for being a fact are pretty clear, but I guess we're starting to argue about what the meaning of "is" is. I then said that the "facts" in the G&S case were just items upon which some of the faculty and the Thames administration did not agree, a statement that has been misunderstood and twisted while I was away on a golf trip to Georgia. Now that I'm back, let me say this: As a member of the academic community, Kate Green should have written a more thoughtful letter that was supported by (and that did not merely allude to) factual information to bolster her claims against JH's column. Further, she should have left off the invitation to attend her classes, as it paints her (and the rest of the faculty) as know-it-alls who always have to have the last word. In short: Make your point in a clear and concise manner and then gracefully exit the scene. If someone would like to tell me what is wrong with the paragraph immediately preceding this one (other than any grammatical issues), I would like to see it in a response here.

---

With two pages of posts following this one, nobody has responded.  Only name-calling.  Is anyone on this board besides Stephen Judd capable of civil debate?

Conservative Prof wrote:

---

With two pages of posts following this one, nobody has responded.  Only name-calling.  Is anyone on this board besides Stephen Judd capable of civil debate?

---

D.T. needs to make one or two points that can be discussed.  Then people can respond in a sensible way.  Of course some think D.T. is sometimes trolling.

DT's posts are LONG. I am TIRED. I wouldn't know where to start with him.

With a dog in this hunt, I'd have to say that DT brings up some pretty good points. I'm not sure where DT stands - but if he (or she) is a faculty member then there is something at stake in those posts. Once again, I commend this Message Board for being a work in progress. Thank goodness we have this Board - it has empowered many of us (and as a result, I think we'll see some pretty great things in the horizon for this university).

All:

I understand your sensitivity to trolls on this board. I have been a regular reader for some time. I have even posted before, though that activity was under another name. I did not troll then, and I am not trolling now.

My attempt to point out internal inconsistencies has drawn the ire of not a few posters. Long-time regulars stephen judd, Invictus, truth4USM/AH and others have questioned my motives and methods. Now LVN has indicated that my posts are (too) long. I agree that the long one is a hugh rant, for which I apologize. Below is a more concise statement of my position on the Green/Fitzgerald letters (pasted from another thread).


"If you're going to write a letter to the HA to refute Hanbury's column or to support Green's letter, then fine. Craft the letter in a clear and concise manner. Understand that space in the paper is limited, so you must make your points in the most direct way possible. Address specific points with direct factual statements, not vague references that run alongside your opinions. End the letter with a strong statement, but don't make it personal, because otherwise you look like a "barn burner."

"I understand and empathize with those who have extreme distaste for Hanbury. I am a USM faculty member. However, the stated purpose of Green and Fitzgerald's letters was to refute Hanbury's claims. Great! Just stay on target. You're not writing to attack Hanbury's existence; you're writing to refute his statements regarding Constitutional Law. Refute his views with facts. Be direct. Be brief. Don't make childish or tacky remarks as a parting shot, because that makes you look like an angry child who is sticking your tongue out at another child on the playground.

"Hanbury's column needed to be challenged. My complaint was the manner in which it was "challenged" and the childish closing remarks in both letters that took the writers from the moral high ground to Hanbury's gutter."


We have to be smarter than this. Every time we hit SFT in the nose with a stiff jab, we leave our left side open to a rabbit punch. Cold logic with an unwhining tone must be the tenor of our public statements so that the community has very little ammunition to use against us in its "faculty are whiners" campaign. To answer a question from another thread, I do focus on tone and emotion, because tone is one of the most important elements in communication and emotion is one of the elements that destroys rational argument. I addressed my concerns with the facts of Green's letter (and their absence from the actual text) way back in my second post on this thread. Few have taken time to respond to my claims there. However, this repeated modus operandi of attacking the writer instead of attacking the argument goes against everything that is preached on this board.

Sorry for another long post.

DT

Doubting Thomas wrote:

---

All: I understand your sensitivity to trolls on this board. I have been a regular reader for some time. I have even posted before, though that activity was under another name. I did not troll then, and I am not trolling now. My attempt to point out internal inconsistencies has drawn the ire of not a few posters. Long-time regulars stephen judd, Invictus, truth4USM/AH and others have questioned my motives and methods. Now LVN has indicated that my posts are (too) long. I agree that the long one is a hugh rant, for which I apologize. Below is a more concise statement of my position on the Green/Fitzgerald letters (pasted from another thread). "If you're going to write a letter to the HA to refute Hanbury's column or to support Green's letter, then fine. Craft the letter in a clear and concise manner. Understand that space in the paper is limited, so you must make your points in the most direct way possible. Address specific points with direct factual statements, not vague references that run alongside your opinions. End the letter with a strong statement, but don't make it personal, because otherwise you look like a "barn burner." "I understand and empathize with those who have extreme distaste for Hanbury. I am a USM faculty member. However, the stated purpose of Green and Fitzgerald's letters was to refute Hanbury's claims. Great! Just stay on target. You're not writing to attack Hanbury's existence; you're writing to refute his statements regarding Constitutional Law. Refute his views with facts. Be direct. Be brief. Don't make childish or tacky remarks as a parting shot, because that makes you look like an angry child who is sticking your tongue out at another child on the playground. "Hanbury's column needed to be challenged. My complaint was the manner in which it was "challenged" and the childish closing remarks in both letters that took the writers from the moral high ground to Hanbury's gutter." We have to be smarter than this. Every time we hit SFT in the nose with a stiff jab, we leave our left side open to a rabbit punch. Cold logic with an unwhining tone must be the tenor of our public statements so that the community has very little ammunition to use against us in its "faculty are whiners" campaign. To answer a question from another thread, I do focus on tone and emotion, because tone is one of the most important elements in communication and emotion is one of the elements that destroys rational argument. I addressed my concerns with the facts of Green's letter (and their absence from the actual text) way back in my second post on this thread. Few have taken time to respond to my claims there. However, this repeated modus operandi of attacking the writer instead of attacking the argument goes against everything that is preached on this board. Sorry for another long post. DT

---

Well, I appreciate your point DT -- and I think I generally agree with it in some instances but this isn't one.

I think the implication of Hanbury's letter -- its positioning as an guest editorial and his (implied) professional expertise (most people assume lawyers automatically have a better insight into constutional law and history) --  make questioning his credibility as an authority a legitmate tactic. In fact, I'd say that it is probably a necessary one in order to overcome the average reader's sense of that being a lawyer automatically confers wisdom on the constitution. This is exactly what Hanbury relies on to bully his way into winning an argument -- it was the same tactic he used when writing the handbook, the (farcical) alcohol policy, and his ludicrous email to Dean Doty. Despite the way he wants to present himself, Hanbury isn't intellectually honest -- where one may believe but one believes skeptically. An intellectual knows that all positions are provisional. Provisional doesn't mean one can't believe in something, nor that one can not be passionate about that belief. But it also acknowleges that the door to new insights and positions is never permanently open nor closed. Hanbury's door is closed to any other argument.

Hanbury is an ideologue -- his world is abolsolutist and black and white. He is not interested in debate -- he is interesting in winning. In so doing he is not above using the forms of intellectual discourse and the form of debate (he cleverly argues both sides, did you notice?  -- not quite honestly presenting the position of the side he disagrees with). And in that sense he debases and brutalizes the forms of public debate -- and in that sense is dishonest in his presentation.

I'd also say Hanbury's tone was incredibly condescending and not at open the the possibility that there might be reasonable arguments contra the (falsely labelled) idea of judicial activism. The letter was delivered in a manner that itself brooked no diagreement, and I'd make a case for there being a number of ad hominum arguments within the letter itself -- arguments that were not aimed at the concept, but at the people who Hanbury quite obviously despises

So, for my money Hanbury deserved what he got.

Personally, I'd put Kate's letter in the form of gentle "tweaking" rather than an all-out personal attack. It is one thing to mount a frontal assault -- it is another to take a hose and squirt water at the foundation of the building and wash the ground away from under it. This is the koind of thing academics do all the time in debate -- a mix of critical discussion and sometimes some nicely targeted undermining of an opponant's credentials. Not such a big deal. It's kind of like saying  . . . "Hey, I studied with Albert Einstein . . . now what is it you want to say about the Theory of Relativity?"

Academics aren't saints and the field of academic discourse is at least as much a place of entertainment and personal contest as any other field.

So my feeling was that Kate made some good counterarguments and then challenged Hanbury right where he lived -- questioning his right to make absolutist statements (which by their very nature admit no other side of an argument).

BUt .. that is a personal reaction and certainly not a party line.

Thanks.

 

 

but in the end nobody is going to care about those closing comments as much as you do. you're reacting as if your personal feelings were hurt or something.

DT, although I can see your point about the snideness of KG's invitation for Hanbury to attend her class in that one sentence, I do believe he could learn something if he could go in there with an open mind. Now, of course, that scenario will never happen, but I also hate the idea of attorneys thinking that they have all the logical answers to the universal questions. My father, mother, and oldest daughter included.

stephen,

The issue is indeed one of style, not substance. Reading your post makes me want to put on my muddy boots and visit Jamestown.

DT


Emma,

While I agree with you about lawyers in general, I think it's a little perilous to go down that road...I would assume that Hanbury had 2 semesters of Con Law at UK Law School under Con Law scholars. That being said, his mind is pretty much made up, which is not the same thing as ignorance. Anyway, I would simply prefer public communications that carry USM affiliations be cold-blooded assassinations, not hot-blooded crimes of passion [do I need a metaphor alert??].


DT



Conservative Prof,

I agree with your estimation on how we allow ourselves to be beaten up with our own doings. I think that in a place like Mississippi (with its particular culture -- no judgment, just stating a fact) that we can do more good with a "Matlock" approach than a "Jack McCoy" approach. I sometimes wonder how many people view me as an "intellectual snob" because I'm a professor and how much that perception damages my ability to interact with others.

DT

Former senator wrote:

---

Perhaps you are right. But perhaps we who are specialists, who are highly educated and experienced in our fields, can justify (or at least explain) some sort of arrogance. Why us less than a physician? or an attorney?

---

Arrogance is not a good thing in my book, no matter what the profession.

To most Hattiesburg residents, "Lawyer" is (and has been for so many years) synonymous with "expert in law" while "Professor of Political Science and Teacher of Constitutional Law" just doesn't carry that weight, regardless of what we, the academic community know to be true.

Again, my "style" prefers a total destruction of Hanbury's argument, not a pi$$ing contest over credentials. I would like to have heard somebody at the grocery store say "Do you know that woman who corrected that lawyer's mistakes in the paper?" rather than almost any alternative. Again, just my style.

Former senator wrote:

---

Of course, you are correct, D.T.  Arrogance is a destructive personal trait.  
Let me postulate this: does the leader set the tone for everyone under his guidance?  Under Lucas were we able to be gracious, humble, as he seemed to be?   Under Thames, do we think we need to fight fire with fire?
 

---

I have two quotes that may fit this question (both unattributed):

"Right is right, even if nobody does it, and wrong is wrong, even if everybody does it."

and

"Kill 'em with kindness."

I tend to think the AKL method is better in the long-term. Be gracious and humble because being gracious and humble is the right thing to do. Also, you can get close enough to your enemy to strike a death blow [not literally] if they're not looking out for you.

Then again, the Rope-A-Dope may have been more a more appropriate strategy when dealing with Shelby.