HA Letter: Fitzgerald supports Kate Green - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Aug 1, 2005

HA Letter: Fitzgerald supports Kate Green

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Who is Fitzgerald? Have we seen his letters before?

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Fitzgerald is a prof, and yes I think he's been in the paper before.
God, I hate being on the same political "side" as Jack Hanbury. With friends like that, who needs enemies!

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Actually, I don't think he's a prof...I think Michael is a grad student.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Dr. Fitzgerald has taught in the USM Dept. of Philosophy in the past on an adjunct basis. His academic qualifications are apparently not unhefty. Perhaps someone who knows him and knows philosophy can speak further.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Directory assistance's risk manager wrote:

Dr. Fitzgerald has taught in the USM Dept. of Philosophy in the past on an adjunct basis. His academic qualifications are apparently not unhefty. Perhaps someone who knows him and knows philosophy can speak further.

Whoops, made an A$$ out of myself with that faux paus...thought it was a grad student who used to write letters to the editor sometime last year.

My bad!

(Thanks RM for helping me out!)

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Great Letter Mr. Fitzgerald - there is hope for Hattiesburg yet!

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Fitzgerald presents some basis for his opinions, which is an improvement over either of the previous two entries in this exchange. However, Fitzgerald cannot help but resort to calling names at the end, which again makes his statement seem like he has a larger axe to grind with Hanbury...which I am willing to guess he does.

Whatever happened to a well-thought-out letter that made the point and didn't deteriorate into partisan name-calling?

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

Whatever happened to a well-thought-out letter that made the point and didn't deteriorate into partisan name-calling?

It was killed off by Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

No doubts here... wrote:

Doubting Thomas wrote:

Whatever happened to a well-thought-out letter that made the point and didn't deteriorate into partisan name-calling?

It was killed off by Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove.

And Michael Moore and that idiot senator who compared something Bush did with the Holocaust.

Date: Aug 1, 2005

LVN wrote:

And Michael Moore and that idiot senator who compared something Bush did with the Holocaust.

Gee, I didn't know Michael Moore was a junkie.

(Question: What do Rush Limbaugh & Karl Rove have in common besides their politics?)

Date: Aug 1, 2005

Invictus wrote:

Gee, I didn't know Michael Moore was a junkie.

Yes, Moore's a junk food junkie, not to mention a wurl' class liar and demagogue who's even reviled by many prominent leftists. But, he is loved by the French.

Date: Aug 2, 2005

Least Venerable wrote:

But, he is loved by the French.

As is Jerry Lewis!

(This thread has taken a turn towards partisan politics, which is never a good idea on this board. Can't we all just get along??)

Date: Aug 2, 2005

Well, I repent me of my part in it, especially as I have always been strongly against such partisanship on the board and have taken others to task for it. But sometimes I get tired of being Ms. Nice Person, and my inner Ms. Attitude Queen shows up.

Date: Aug 2, 2005

FROM FACULTY SENATE LISTSERV:

I thought USM ought to see the "real letter" I sent to the Hattiesburg
American, responding to Jack Hanbury's Op-Ed piece. They simply cut the
"guts" out of my criticism. I haven't forgotten his views of justice at
USM.
Mike Fitzgerald

29 July 2005
Dear Editor:
Ms. Green's letter of 28/ July, responding to Jack Hanbury's Op-Ed piece of
24 July, is right on the money. Hanbury would have Supreme Court Judges
read the Constitution "literally", just like fundamentalists read the Bible.
The Courts may not interpret the Constitution; just enforce it. It is
chiseled in stone like the Ten Commandments. It never changes. I'm
surprised more Hattiesburgians are not incensed by these unpatriotic views
of the United States Supreme Court, and here is why: 1) Hanbury resents
"judicial review". He apparently disagrees with the Marbury vs. Madison
decision, that the Supreme Court has a right to determine the
constitutionality of Laws passed by the Congress. Congressional law is not
supreme. Congress itself has just celebrated this decision with the issuing
of a commemorative coin. Hanbury seems to think if Congress wants a law,
they should have it whether it is a just law or in accordance with the
Constitution does not matter. 2) He talks about the founding Fathers and
their "intent", but does not tell us how he has access to their "intent"
was. Is he having séances with them, gazing into a crystal ball, reading
Tarot cards, or merely reading the grounds in the bottom of his coffee pot?
He should read discussions of the "Intentional Fallacy" in any common
undergraduate book on aesthetic or literary theory for further insight into
such matters. 3) Hanbury clamors about the First Amendment, and the fact
that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not occur there.
This Amendment he wants to take literally. However, he is pretty fast and
loose with the Fifth Amendment. In 2003 he was busy rewriting the Faculty
Handbook at U.S.M. for President Thames, affectionately known at U.S.M. as
the "Hanbury Handbook". On 11 November 2003, he told the student newspaper,
The Student Prin., "The handbook," he said, "lies in between the version
contained in the faculty handbooks at Mississippi Sate and Ole Miss
regarding due process, with USM's having LESS DUE PROCESS [my emphasis] than
the Ole Miss version." His autocratic view of the Constitution cannot be
more clear. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States,
says: "No person shall...be deprived of life liberty or property, without
due process of law...." Where is the phrase "LESS DUE PROCESS"? Is "less
due process" the "intent" of the founding fathers? Is Hanbury suggesting
African Americans "merely had less due process under 'Jim Crow Laws' than
Whites," or that "Saddam Hussein granted 'less due process' to Shiites as
opposed to Sunnites." I think not! You either are entitled to due process,
or you are not. 4) His idea that "forsaking the moral basis provided by
religion, all our freedoms are in jeopardy" is sheer poppycock! Certainly
one can be moral without ever believing in a religion. The great
philosopher, Bertrand Russell, was certainly one who was concerned about
morality, yet was an ardent atheist. The sum of Hanbury's views of the
Supreme Court Judges, as Russell would say: "Is a lot of pernicious
rubbish", and as I say: "Is a lot of radical right-wing tripe."
Michael J. Fitzgerald

Date: Aug 2, 2005

Thank you for allowing us to see the entire letter. The "less due process" point is well made. It's an Animal Farm way of thinking for sure.

Date: Aug 2, 2005

I am hoping that someone who knows about the history of our country can help me with some "information" I recently received. (The quotation marks are because I am not certain enough to call them facts.)

(1) Thomas Jefferson was a very strong advocate of a strict or narrow interpretation of the constitution.

(2) As President, Jefferson was presented with the opportunity to buy a big chunk of land that he really wanted at a bargain of a price.

(3) He was unable to find any constitutional authority vested in the President for such a purpose.

(4) He ultimately "found" that authority in the President's constitutional treaty-making power.

(5) He bought Louisiana. Or, put more acurately, he negotiated a treaty with Napoleon that included the Louisiana Purchase.

Date: Aug 3, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

Fitzgerald presents some basis for his opinions, which is an improvement over either of the previous two entries in this exchange. However, Fitzgerald cannot help but resort to calling names at the end, which again makes his statement seem like he has a larger axe to grind with Hanbury...which I am willing to guess he does. Whatever happened to a well-thought-out letter that made the point and didn't deteriorate into partisan name-calling?

Fitzgerald is like most liberals--call people names when you can't debate. They are "Tolerant" of all viewpoints with which they agree. Let someone disagree and they are accused of being ignorant and their words, "rubbish" and "tripe."

Like Greene, Fitzgerald demonstrates a total lack of knowledge of constitutional history. If they would study the records of the constitutional convention and the writings of the founders, they would have a little more knowledge of their intent. I find it interesting that neither of them are able to refute Hanbury, resorting instead to liberal platitudes.

Fitzgerald just has an ax to grind because he was fired as an adjunct because he was too lazy. Apparently, that applies to his intellectual abilities as well.

Date: Aug 3, 2005

Doubting Thomas--I have a question for you. Why shouldn't some of us have an axe to grind? Do you think Hanbury gave Shelby Thames good legal advice?

Date: Aug 3, 2005

Do not feed trolls.

Date: Aug 3, 2005

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.

Date: Aug 3, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

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.

Other than the STYLE, do you have any comments on the CONTENT of the letters. You seem to concentrate (as several others who turned out to be trolls) on the style, emotion etc., but ignore the content, facts and logic. Why?

Date: Aug 3, 2005

DT, in other words - keep emotions out of the dynamic fueling the words written - that's pretty hard to do, but I'll agree with you on this one - to a certain point. I applauded Kate's contribution while I also was happy to see Hanbury's blunder. Fitzgerald chimed in, and the HA sells more copies. However, it's great to see a debate happening that the HA isn't ignoring. A voice is being heard that isn't Shelby's voice - okay, we get pompous at times, but it's hard to separate the brains from the heart when our voice is finally spewing out our frustrations. The unique position is this, folks. It's playing out in the local paper - it's got a state voice. Now, we need to figure out how to make it more national. We have colleagues all over the country who want to see this MB be the model of how academic voices mesh with the public.

Date: Aug 3, 2005

Nit Picker wrote:

Other than the STYLE, do you have any comments on the CONTENT of the letters. You seem to concentrate (as several others who turned out to be trolls) on the style, emotion etc., but ignore the content, facts and logic. Why?

From another thread, but answering your question:

"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."

DT

Date: Aug 3, 2005

Emma wrote:

DT, in other words - keep emotions out of the dynamic fueling the words written - that's pretty hard to do, but I'll agree with you on this one - to a certain point. I applauded Kate's contribution while I also was happy to see Hanbury's blunder. Fitzgerald chimed in, and the HA sells more copies. However, it's great to see a debate happening that the HA isn't ignoring. A voice is being heard that isn't Shelby's voice - okay, we get pompous at times, but it's hard to separate the brains from the heart when our voice is finally spewing out our frustrations. The unique position is this, folks. It's playing out in the local paper - it's got a state voice. Now, we need to figure out how to make it more national. We have colleagues all over the country who want to see this MB be the model of how academic voices mesh with the public.

Emma,

Thanks for taking time to respond in a civil manner to the issues I am trying to raise.

I agree that it would be hard to separate emotion from the fueling dynamic IF THE EXCHANGE WERE VERBAL AND FACE-TO-FACE [my emphasis, not shouting at you]. However, these are written statements. They can be written, set aside for an hour or two, re-read, revised, reviewed, and (if necessary) rewritten so that the point is made clearly and unemotionally. Emotion works well at tent revivals and when trying to scare people into supporting your "side." But that's not what we're about...we're about presenting facts and convincing others by destroying the straw man that is SFT's supporters' argument.

Thanks for listening and interacting with an open mind.

DT

Date: Aug 3, 2005

I still don't get how DT relates letters about interpretation of the constitution to issues with SFT.

Date: Aug 3, 2005

Nit Picker wrote:

I still don't get how DT relates letters about interpretation of the constitution to issues with SFT.

Spot on observation, NP. The whole Hanbury op-ed thing has provided DT & a couple of alter egos a wonderful opportunity to park the train on a side track.

P.S. "Nit" & I are not related, AFAIK

Date: Aug 3, 2005

If I understand correctly, I think he has issue with the manner in which the letters by Kate Green and Fitgerald were written; therefore, making faculty as a whole perceived in a negative light.

Date: Aug 3, 2005

Nit Picker wrote:

I still don't get how DT relates letters about interpretation of the constitution to issues with SFT.

I will lay it out as clearly as possible:

The emotional tone of Green and Fitzgerald's letters are fueled by their dislike of Hanbury, who was a double-secret advisor to SFT during the Glamser & Stringer period. Instead of refuting Hanbury's column, both letter writers allow their arguments to be co-opted by their dislike for Hanbury and SFT instead of sticking to cold logic regarding Constitutional Law. In the end, this slip-up makes the letters weaker than they could have been and paints faculty and faculty supporters as "spoiled children" or whatever euphemism you choose for "whiners." My assertion is that it is the letter writers who have turned the discussion from Law to Thames through their written tone. Facts and logic minus emotion make the letters about Law. As is, they are thinly veiled attacks of Hanbury's being which serve no purpose other than to vent the writers' frustrations with Hanbury's Thames connection.

Date: Aug 3, 2005

Doubting Thomas wrote:

I will lay it out as clearly as possible: The emotional tone of Green and Fitzgerald's letters are fueled by their dislike of Hanbury, who was a double-secret advisor to SFT during the Glamser & Stringer period.

This is all in your head DT. There was no "emotional" tone to the letters. Yes, there was some "smart alect" reparks which are not unusual in Letters to the Editor. No big deal for me. But you claim to be able to get into their heads and say that is what motivated a couple of sentences of their letters. Then you ignore the content and address your magined motivations. This is why I for one have trouble communicating with you.

Instead of refuting Hanbury's column, both letter writers allow their arguments to be co-opted by their dislike for Hanbury and SFT instead of sticking to cold logic regarding Constitutional Law.

I think they did rebut Hanbury Op-Ed piece with letters limited to 250 words. Their style was different from what I would write, but their method of debate is use in some cultures.

In the end, this slip-up makes the letters weaker than they could have been and paints faculty and faculty supporters as "spoiled children" or whatever euphemism you choose for "whiners."

Exactly!! If you want to find fault with faculty letters you will be able to take anything written and find fault. Whining, liberal, spoiled or as you said "whatever."

My assertion is that it is the letter writers who have turned the discussion from Law to Thames through their written tone.

Not True. This was done by you on this board. You are confusing what is in your imagination and what you BELIEVE was in the writers mind. Big difference. You are creating this, not the letter writers.

Facts and logic minus emotion make the letters about Law. As is, they are thinly veiled attacks of Hanbury's being which serve no purpose other than to vent the writers' frustrations with Hanbury's Thames connection.

No, I think it was about Harry Potter. See I also have an imagination.