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

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

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" <denful () hotmail com>
To: declan () well com
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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------