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

Date: Aug 4, 2005

Hanbury's OP-ED Piece Rebutted

Date: Aug 4, 2005

Walnut Gallery wrote:

Now that's what I call a substantive retort.

If you're looking for retorts, there are plenty of these in the Polymer Science building...

Date: Aug 4, 2005

I'm one of those who no longer cares about what the public thinks of the faculty. Why? Well, maybe because they caused much of the problems and were used by Thames to attack the faculty. If the "public image" of the faculty has that much weight with those running the university, then this university (and state) is screwed.

Colleagues of 25 years are leaving, departments have been decimated, and for 28 years I was polite to ignorant citizens living in the past. No more. I will say what I believe the way I want. If they don't like it they can tear down USM, if Shelby hasn't beaten them to it.

Date: Aug 4, 2005

Jameela Lares wrote:

Conservative Prof wrote: I think the "invitation" to attend her class portrays us as arrogant, a complaint that is not entirely unjustified. We academics often think we know more than most people and that anyone who disagrees with us is ignorant. Comments such as this only further that concept. CP, this statement troubles me. As an academic, I have greater opportunities to know how very much there is to know and how far I come short of it. Where's the opportunity to think I know more than most people? I know that the demands of knowing very much about a narrow range of information means that everyone I meet has a substantial knowledge base in other areas that I lack. Also, I don't recognize a knee-jerk equation of disagreement with ignorance. Of course, my own main speciality (Milton studies) is pretty contentious. I know people with just as much education who disagree markedly with me on, say, the role of Satan in Paradise Lost. But I can't think that I'm particularly different from most academics. I actually prefer reading books and talking to people that I disagree with, as it sharpens my own thinking. Jameela

I tend to agree with Jameela here. I'm absolutely aware that on matters of politics, religion, etc. . . . my opinion isn't worth a great deal more than a plumber or a grade school teacher. However, when it comes to my discipline, or anything closely connected to it, or the university and its inner workings, you can bet I think I have a leg up on knowling something that someone outside the discipline or the university might not.

That doesn't doesn't mean that someone outside my discipline or the university doesn't have something worthwhile to say . . . nor does it mean I should automatically shut off my ears. On the other hand, I definitely tend to rest the idea that in all discussions, everyone's opinion is of equal value.

I think that is one reason why in the exchnage between Hanbury and Kate Green, a display of "bona fides" is probably necessary. Especially since (I tend to support DT here) the public tends to automatically confer the weight of credibility on an issue like this to the lawyer.

The other thing I think important in a letter to the editor is I think there is a kind of entertainment value associated with getting a reader to read the letter and engage in the issue. Perhaps Hanbury deliberately overstated his case (doubtful, given what I know of him) in order to provoke. Kate on the other hand, I know for sure uses a certain kind of provocation as a mechanism of engagement --- she is not the only academic to do this. It isn't everyone's cup of tea. As I indicated, I thought the invitation to attend her class was pretty amusing. And I think it served the purpose of laying out a knd of challenge -- she was actually declaring, indirectly, that Hanbury was using a selective and doctored history to support his absolutist principles. The inviation to come to her class was a slap on the public level ("you need a better education in the broader issues of american political philosophy") and a personal one ("you had to gall to try to tell this faculty how it should be managed for a $140,000 salary and failed miserably -- what qualifies you as an expert on constitutional law?")

I think the public isn't going to get that part of the message. But I sure did.

I didn't find Kate's letter either arrogant or abusive . . . . but then I've also read quite a few of Mark Twain's essays and letters critiquing the public figures and issues of his time.

Date: Aug 4, 2005

ahem: should be

"I definitely tend to resist the idea that in all discussions, everyone's opinion is of equal value."

Date: Aug 4, 2005

Honk If U Passed P-Chem wrote:

Walnut Gallery wrote:
Now that's what I call a substantive retort.

If you're looking for retorts, there are plenty of these in the Polymer Science building...

Hi, U PP C:

One used for cooking up nouns--right?

Date: Aug 4, 2005

stephen and Jameela,

I agree with both of you that there we all have areas of expertise (some of which overlap). I also agree with Conservative Prof that we should be careful over whom we lord that expertise. In class, we are the authority. At academic meetings or other circles of peers, we are at least equal to most of the assembled scholars. However, in both of these instances, we are interacting with individuals and groups who have a stated interest in learning about or discussing the area in question.

However, when I go out into the "world," there is a large portion of the population that has absolutely no interest in my field. If I continually stress my expertise or act as if my expertise makes me better than these people, it will result in animosity. So, while I know that I have expertise in my field and my colleagues know that I have expertise in my field, I have to remember that my dry cleaner has expertise in his or her area as well. While we tend to discount that type of expertise, you can bet that an electrician values his knowledge highly.

Date: Aug 4, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

However, when I go out into the "world," there is a large portion of the population that has absolutely no interest in my field. If I continually stress my expertise or act as if my expertise makes me better than these people, it will result in animosity. So, while I know that I have expertise in my field and my colleagues know that I have expertise in my field, I have to remember that my dry cleaner has expertise in his or her area as well. While we tend to discount that type of expertise, you can bet that an electrician values his knowledge highly.

[Emphasis added.]

DT, thanks for your articulate post, but I continue to be troubled. As did CP, you employed the phrase "we tend," broadly including other professors. Sorry, I don't discount my neighbor's non-academic expertise, and I know others who don't. In fact, I'm wondering if you are overgeneralizing from anecdotal evidence. Unless you have empirical sociological evidence for the behavior of the average professor in society, you need to speak for yourself.

Jameela

Date: Aug 4, 2005

Jameela Lares wrote:

[Emphasis added.]
DT, thanks for your articulate post, but I continue to be troubled. As did CP, you employed the phrase "we tend," broadly including other professors. Sorry, I don't discount my neighbor's non-academic expertise, and I know others who don't. In fact, I'm wondering if you are overgeneralizing from anecdotal evidence. Unless you have empirical sociological evidence for the behavior of the average professor in society, you need to speak for yourself.
Jameela

I am sorry that you are troubled by my statements. You are correct that I am relying on casual empiricism when making this statement, but I have a crossectional sample that I believe is large enough to satisfy the Central Limit Theorem.

When I say "we," I am hedging the temptation to say "some of us" because I don't want to sound holier-than-thou. I have been guilty of this in the past.

I would like to ask you a question:
Do you care who the best quarterback in the NFL is?

I have a reason for asking.

Date: Aug 4, 2005

OK, scratch that question...I'll just use another avenue.

Many are disgusted by a professional athlete who is a shameless self-promoter. Terrell Owens has drawn a lot of fire for his actions and words in the past. He has stated that his behavior is just a way to draw attention to how good he is. And he is good. In fact, he may be the best receiver in the best professional football league in the world.

When people who don't value his specific skills (his "expertise") see his antics, they get turned off of T.O., football, and athletes in general. Why? Not because T.O. isn't genuinely one of the best at what he does but because of the manner in which he conducts himself publicly.

Whether you or I like or don't like football isn't the issue here. Some like it and some don't. If you don't like football, T.O. is just giving you more ammo to use against him every time he pulls out a Sharpie.

Date: Aug 4, 2005

Hey, DT. Thanks for the swift answer. In a minute, I really need to get back to work, so I may not be back for any further chat for awhile.

It would appear that we both share a concern that we be understood in the community. You seem to want to acknowledge occasional slips to build our collective ethos. I am concerned that someone not just read your post and say, "Aha! Even a professor admits that they're all a bunch of pompous [whatevers]." So, we're in agreement in our disagreement, it would seem.

Alas, I have always had difficulty getting into sports. On the old trivial pursuit game, I couldn't get more than one orange question out of twenty. The difficulty seems to have something to do with my upbringing. I grew up in a family where the men were all jocks and terminal sports addicts and the women did other things; we all happily went our own way. Thus, I don't have any thoughts at all about any pro football player other than a nagging feeling that there always should be a game on somewhere.

Jameela

Date: Aug 4, 2005

Ack! That last post should have had my name on it, not DT's. Sorry! JL

Date: Aug 4, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

...However, when I go out into the "world," there is a large portion of the population that has absolutely no interest in my field. If I continually stress my expertise or act as if my expertise makes me better than these people, it will result in animosity. So, while I know that I have expertise in my field and my colleagues know that I have expertise in my field, I have to remember that my dry cleaner has expertise in his or her area as well. While we tend to discount that type of expertise, you can bet that an electrician values his knowledge highly.

I must be on a different planet because when I go out in public almost everyone has an expertise that I discuss or consult, but hardly anyone ask for my expertise. (Some do just to be polite.) I consult the cleaner’s expertise on removing a stain. My plumber is consulted on the backed up pipes. People who aren't mechanics tell me what is wrong with my car over a glass of beer. Very seldom does my neighbor ask me about organic chemistry. It just doesn't come up. But you're telling me I may come across as arrogant if I discuss organic chemistry in public?

And all of this is because DT thinks a couple of sentences in a letter to the editor from a teacher of the constitution appears to DT to be arrogant?

I'm sorry DT but your position reminds me of many trolls we had on this board. I recall these positions:

"Both sides are to blame." "Faculty are losing the support of the community because ..." "Shut this board down because it gives the community a bad image of faculty" Etc. Etc.

Date: Aug 4, 2005

Thomas, you seem, with respect, not to understand what a political scientist studies. In her case, she has studied, researched about, and published in important places articles on the law and the Constitution. Actually, lawyers do not usually have the constitutional theory background that a political scientist of her ilk has.

Date: Aug 4, 2005

donald wrote:

Thomas, you seem, with respect, not to understand what a political scientist studies. In her case, she has studied, researched about, and published in important places articles on the law and the Constitution. Actually, lawyers do not usually have the constitutional theory background that a political scientist of her ilk has.

donald,

Returning all due respect, I do understand what a political scientist studies. I understand it quite well, in fact. When you say "published in important places articles on the law and the Constitution" can you provide evidence of these works? I have examined her online vita and can find no more than 4 refereed journal articles, plus one book that was apparently self-edited. In point of fact, I checked this vita before making my first post criticizing her statements. Please correct me if I am in grave error.

Date: Aug 4, 2005

LeftASAP,

Are you even reading my posts? I have repeatedly said that Hanbury's statements should have been countered publicly. I have a problem with the tacky, condecending, immature language (in my opinion) that was used to close both Green's and Fitzgerald's letters. You are reading way too much into the rest of that. You are profiling me based on phraseology that I use and labeling me a troll. I didn't say shut down the board, and I didn't say stop presenting our side of this fight. Does everyone have to agree on everything? stephen judd, Jameela Lares, (maybe) Invictus, and I have all agreed fairly cordially to disagree on this issue of style. I am moving on to other topics, but I keep getting pot-shots from posters every day. I am not going to agree that emotional argument is beneficial to our cause! In any other instance, I am willing to assert that almost everyone here would agree with me. The fact is that Hanbury causes some to discard their otherwise-held beliefs, and I can accept that. I do not agree with it, but I can accept it. Being called a troll is getting pretty old, especially when people don't take the time to read and digest your posts before blazing away.

Date: Aug 4, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

When you say "published in important places articles on the law and the Constitution" can you provide evidence of these works? I have examined her online vita and can find no more than 4 refereed journal articles, plus one book that was apparently self-edited.

"Self-edited?" Do you mean "self-published?" Academic books are usually edited by in house editors at the publishing house, and thus don't give the name of the editor anywhere in the citation. Any one who published anything self-edits as part of the process, yes?

Date: Aug 4, 2005

This is just for clarification. . . .

Date: Aug 4, 2005

foot soldier wrote:

This is just for clarification. . . .

foot soldier,

I am asking to be proven wrong. I think I said "appears" because I don't know which of your alternatives is correct. It's not listed there on her online vita. I am making an attempt to get one of these folks who has been yelling "troll" to tell me why I am wrong...this is not a personal attack on Ms. Green. I will not rehash, but my objections are documented.

DT

Date: Aug 4, 2005

DT, I don't see a published online vita. Where are you finding it?

Date: Aug 4, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

LeftASAP, Are you even reading my posts? I have repeatedly said that Hanbury's statements should have been countered publicly. I have a problem with the tacky, condecending, immature language (in my opinion) that was used to close both Green's and Fitzgerald's letters. You are reading way too much into the rest of that. You are profiling me based on phraseology that I use and labeling me a troll. I didn't say shut down the board, and I didn't say stop presenting our side of this fight. Does everyone have to agree on everything? stephen judd, Jameela Lares, (maybe) Invictus, and I have all agreed fairly cordially to disagree on this issue of style. I am moving on to other topics, but I keep getting pot-shots from posters every day. I am not going to agree that emotional argument is beneficial to our cause! In any other instance, I am willing to assert that almost everyone here would agree with me. The fact is that Hanbury causes some to discard their otherwise-held beliefs, and I can accept that. I do not agree with it, but I can accept it. Being called a troll is getting pretty old, especially when people don't take the time to read and digest your posts before blazing away.

With all due respect DT, my point has been that you tend to concentrate on the subjective. Discussions of these subjective style issues has now taken up 5 pages on this thread. Now the conclusion reached in all of this is we agree to disagree on subjective style issues. Wow! Big discovery. We could have been discussing the interpretation of our constitution which was the topic of the Op-Ed piece and the letters.

If you read my last post carefully I didn’t call you a troll. I said, “I'm sorry DT but your position reminds me of many trolls we had on this board. “

Date: Aug 4, 2005

Nothing up my sleeve wrote:

DT, I don't see a published online vita. Where are you finding it?

here

Date: Aug 4, 2005

LeftASAP wrote:

With all due respect DT, my point has been that you tend to concentrate on the subjective. Discussions of these subjective style issues has now taken up 5 pages on this thread. Now the conclusion reached in all of this is we agree to disagree on subjective style issues. Wow! Big discovery. We could have been discussing the interpretation of our constitution which was the topic of the Op-Ed piece and the letters.

If you read my last post carefully I didn’t call you a troll. I said, “I'm sorry DT but your position reminds me of many trolls we had on this board. “

Here's the deal. I posted an opinion and got blasted. I will not back down to the taunts of "troll" that I have received since then. If you check communication literature, there is documentation that certain tones and styles elicit certain responses, and that if you mismatch the tone or style of your communication, it may confuse the reader (or make her tune you out) or it may simply obfuscate the message altogether. It was my assertion that the tone and style of the closing of both letters diminished their effectiveness. It was a critique. You seemed OK with it back on page 1 of this thread. You disappeared for a couple of days and some of your colleagues started taking pot-shots, which I felt obliged to volley. I've actually had some decent discussions with several posters, but I continually have to defend my statements not on merit but on diction.

Date: Aug 4, 2005

The vita apparently needs updating. The last entry is--what?--2001? A "forthcoming" article was to be published in Historical and Multicultural Encyclopedia of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States, but that book appeared in 2002.

Date: Aug 4, 2005

PS

Vitae on department websites are frequently selective rather than exhaustive, since the point is to demonstrate the professor's range of specialties.

Date: Aug 4, 2005

Thanks for the link to Dr. Greene's vita.

I counted 13 publications total (refereed, non-refereed, book chapters & book reviews), plus several at press or in review, since 1995. (Yes, I understand the weight you're placing -- rightfully -- on refereed publications, but it does make it sound as if she doesn't write anything much at all, which isn't perzactly true.)

I also see two years on the honors faculty (since '95) & eight years as the honors advisor for her department.

But I can also see from the themes of the publications why a Southern male conservative might have an axe to grind with her.

Date: Aug 4, 2005

So, while I know that I have expertise in my field and my colleagues know that I have expertise in my field, I have to remember that my dry cleaner has expertise in his or her area as well. While we tend to discount that type of expertise, you can bet that an electrician values his knowledge highly.

A nice point DT.

But if my dry cleaner and a chemist got into a dispute over which chemical was best for cleaning, I'd have an interest in their argument but would not at all feel "lorded over" or insulted if their dispute went over my head and I did not necessarily understand the fine points of either their arguments or their attemots to raise issues of who is most credible -- the most "expert", in other words.

I wouldn't regard them as elitist, either, for having access to knowlege and expertise I don't have. After all, that's what I pay the dry cleaner for.

So I'm not sure I agree that people look at these disputes between experts and feel as though we are elitist. And if they do . . . then I think I'm just not very sympathetic these days. The idea that all opinions are equal or that when I use my expertise in a public forum I am somehow being condescending or elitist is something that seems to be runing in popular culture right now. I don't necessarily feel as though I want to go out of my way to condescend to people, but on the other hand I think we can easily decend to being condescending when we spend a lot of time making assumotions about how the ignorant unwashed masses perceive our discussions . . .

As I say, its all personal opinion and style . . . I don't feel as though every time I express an opinion I have to do so fearing that I must always monitor myself because what I say or how I say it might reflect on USM or the other members of the faculty . . . that is an interesting back door to group think. Don't get me wrong -- it also doesn;t mean I should go out and kick a dog or take candy from a kid either -- I should definitely try to let my membership in the community temper my actions. But there isn't a long way from tempered actions to rendering all actions and words so bland they are meaningless.

I think, with respect, we just disagree here -- I just don't find Kate's letter that insulting.

Date: Aug 4, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

foot soldier,

I am asking to be proven wrong. I think I said "appears" because I don't know which of your alternatives is correct. It's not listed there on her online vita. I am making an attempt to get one of these folks who has been yelling "troll" to tell me why I am wrong...this is not a personal attack on Ms. Green. I will not rehash, but my objections are documented.

DT

I'm just trying to make clear what you meant. Kate Green's book is

Affirmative Action and Principles of Justice published by Greenwood Press in 1989.

According to Worldcat, at least 746 libraries own it. It looks as if is the publication of her dissertation, completed the year before.

I don't have a dog in this fight, honest.

Date: Aug 4, 2005

I wish I'd sold 746 copies of my dissertation

Date: Aug 4, 2005

stephen judd wrote:

So, while I know that I have expertise in my field and my colleagues know that I have expertise in my field, I have to remember that my dry cleaner has expertise in his or her area as well. While we tend to discount that type of expertise, you can bet that an electrician values his knowledge highly.
A nice point DT.
But if my dry cleaner and a chemist got into a dispute over which chemical was best for cleaning, I'd have an interest in their argument but would not at all feel "lorded over" or insulted if their dispute went over my head and I did not necessarily understand the fine points of either their arguments or their attemots to raise issues of who is most credible -- the most "expert", in other words.
I wouldn't regard them as elitist, either, for having access to knowlege and expertise I don't have. After all, that's what I pay the dry cleaner for.
So I'm not sure I agree that people look at these disputes between experts and feel as though we are elitist. And if they do . . . then I think I'm just not very sympathetic these days. The idea that all opinions are equal or that when I use my expertise in a public forum I am somehow being condescending or elitist is something that seems to be runing in popular culture right now. I don't necessarily feel as though I want to go out of my way to condescend to people, but on the other hand I think we can easily decend to being condescending when we spend a lot of time making assumotions about how the ignorant unwashed masses perceive our discussions . . .
As I say, its all personal opinion and style . . . I don't feel as though every time I express an opinion I have to do so fearing that I must always monitor myself because what I say or how I say it might reflect on USM or the other members of the faculty . . . that is an interesting back door to group think. Don't get me wrong -- it also doesn;t mean I should go out and kick a dog or take candy from a kid either -- I should definitely try to let my membership in the community temper my actions. But there isn't a long way from tempered actions to rendering all actions and words so bland they are meaningless.
I think, with respect, we just disagree here -- I just don't find Kate's letter that insulting.

Did your dry cleaner purposefully show how much he or she knows by using jargon and/or referencing his or her credentials, or did he or she explain it plainly so that you walked away with information or knowledge and a good feeling about the interaction?

Showing off so that you sound smart (for whatever reason) in a nonacademic environment is the equivalent to the first, while using some humility may allow the second to come to pass.

I know you don't find the letter insulting, but you're an academic! That's really the point, isn't it? We don't automatically think like non-academics because we're not non-academics. And non-academics don't think like us because they're not academics. Somebody has to be the bigger person, so to speak, and all of this "Why should I extend my hand first?" crap is nothing but posturing and is, quite frankly, getting a bit old.

Furthermore, Hanbury has no sway over us anymore. He got fired from USM. Sniping at him with personal attacks is petty. Demolish his argument but leave the insults out of it.

Finally, I know we don't agree. I don't expect you to change your mind and agree with me. Do I have to change my views so that there can be peace on the board? Do I have to acquiesce to the will of the masses so that I can state an opinion and not get hounded, not by reason, but by "you sound like a troll," "you're a troll," or "you don't know what you're talking about"? Almost every time I state an opinion, I can tell you why I feel that way...but I have to disguise my level of expertise in some areas or I'll be "outed" and I cannot afford to be outed as I am without the thin veil of protection that is tenure. Will I change my views? Possibly, but only if somebody brings an argument that is factually strong enough that, after reflection, makes more sense to me than does my original opinion.

By the way, and I do not mean this personally, but Stephen, your area of expertise is theater (set design and painting & printmaking, as I see from your well-written bio) and you have some considerable amount of both academic and professional experience. I will never question your authority in those areas, because I have none in them. Zero. Zilch. There are probably other areas in which your knowledge would dominate mine. Perhaps the same could be said for me in my areas...which are as far from theater as the East is from the West. However, in the middle ground, when neither of us is an expert, my opinion is as valuable as yours. It may differ from yours. It may be based on a different set of principles. But it IS of equal value. To say that one would be greater than the other would be the epitome of arrogance.