Scumbag of the Day: Wally Hettle
Read about it here. The comment thread that started it all is preserved here.
Another example of the leftist thought police taking steps to either: 1) silence dissent, or failing that, 2) harm the dissenter’s career.
If this upsets you, you can let Wally know how you feel. His e-mail is liberalwally@yahoo.com — or you can reach him at work at wallace.hettle@uni.edu. His phone number is (319) 273-2942.
(And no, this is not revealing anything private about him. The personal e-mail is from the linked comment thread. His work information is all public, available here.)
But don’t involve his employers. That’s too much like what he did — and it’s out of line. Show the world that you’re better than he is.
“If this upsets you, you can let Wally know how you feel. His e-mail is liberalwally@yahoo.com — or you can reach him at work at wallace.hettle@uni.edu. His phone number is (319) 273-2942.”
This is pretty scummy.
actus (c9e62e) — 11/10/2005 @ 4:41 pm“Another example of the leftist thought police taking steps to either: 1) silence dissent, or failing that, 2) harm the dissenter’s career.”
And have you followed up on how well the “dissenter” is taking care of his career? Its difficult to watch, but I keep going back there.
actus (c9e62e) — 11/10/2005 @ 4:42 pmThis is pretty scummy.
Explain why.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 11/10/2005 @ 4:57 pmWow, Deignan found a coupla bigger pricks than himself? Sigh, now we gotta support him on principle. Sigh again.
ras (f9de13) — 11/10/2005 @ 4:57 pmWe don’t have to support a lawsuit. Though I’m not sure how I’d react in similar circumstances. How he should respond is debatable. Whether Prof. Hettle’s actions were proper is not.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 11/10/2005 @ 4:58 pmOK, I’ll do it, but I’m gonna need an extra shot of the Gibson’s tonite to get me thru. Here goes:
Deignan did nothing wrong. He had every right to express his opinion, esp in a forum that called for such, and moreover appears to have done so in a temperate manner. His foils in this arg couldn’t be more in the wrong.
ras (f9de13) — 11/10/2005 @ 5:00 pmPatteico,
We’re crossing wires here, prob cuz I type so slow. Anyway, I agree with everything you’ve said.
ras (f9de13) — 11/10/2005 @ 5:01 pmRas,
My “explain why” comment was a response to Actus’s inane comment that it was “scummy” for me to provide contact information for Prof. Hettle, when he gave his name and place of employment in the linked thread, and invited people to Google him — which I did. I think that, if people find his behavior reprehensible, they should tell him — not by using a lawyer, and not by threatening his employment — but simply by contacting him and asking him how he could possibly justify such behavior.
There’s nothing scummy about my posting that information. For Actus to imply otherwise is indicative of a guy who either 1) didn’t bother to follow the links or 2) has a severe reasoning deficiency. Or both.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 11/10/2005 @ 5:05 pmWe’re crossing wires here, prob cuz I type so slow. Anyway, I agree with everything you’ve said.
Then your opinion is clearly correct.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 11/10/2005 @ 5:06 pmI’m also not comfortable with what appears to be an effort on Paul’s part to reveal an anonymous blogger’s identity. I skimmed some of the material, so I apologize if I’m misreading what he’s doing, but that’s how it appeared to me.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 11/10/2005 @ 5:08 pmHmmm, I just skimmed quickly too. Maybe I’ll go back and review a little more carefully myself, esp the “anonymous blogger” part. Thx.
ras (f9de13) — 11/10/2005 @ 5:13 pmOK, I read it a little more carefully and from what I can tell, BitchPhD is well-named (and not in the tough-gal sense, either, more in the “sheesh” sense), but she did nothing illegal or worthy of a lawsuit that I can see.
Deignan was outta bounds in going after BitchPhd: for her to say that he “may” have tracked her down that way is merely to speculate, not to libel. It’s like my saying to you we “may” have met before. And Deignan should have had the good sense to realize that his fight wasn’t with her, anyway, so why track her down at all? To what purpose?
As for Hettle, he appears to be an arrogant little man, trying to sabotage a stranger’s career simply over a disagreement on a blog comments section. Funny the things that give such people a rush of power to their belly. He fully deserves to have his little bottom spanked in public for his attempt at intimidation.
All in all, a motley cast of characters fighting a motley little battle. If it weren’t for the principles violated by Hettle, I’d pox the lot of them and walk away, but Hettle does need a public comeuppance lest his sort of behavior be encouraged in others.
You were right to draw attention to it, Patrick, but just between you and I (all others skip this part) I’d lay off the ph number stuff, as the real attention comes in simply having the story told publicly, as you & others have done, and not in Hettle’s hearing complaints from strangers on the ph.
ras (f9de13) — 11/10/2005 @ 5:51 pmIsn’t this rather similar to the “outing” of Valerie Wilson? Her career was, supposedly, ruined by the exposure of her status as a double-nought spy, some say in retaliation against her two-faced husband.
As a good attorney, you can obviously come up with some minutiae which differentiates the two . . . and such would be appreciated by those seeking such differences. But to the public at large, they will seem like distinctions without a difference, if they pay any attention to them at all, and will see this as fair payback to a conservative (without even caring what Mr. Deignan thought about the exposure of Mrs. Wilson.
Dana R. Pico (8d0335) — 11/10/2005 @ 6:28 pmI agree Patterico; the guy is really an ass. I hope it was just an empty threat.
But not all of us democrats are “leftist thought police” like him.
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/10/2005 @ 7:10 pmThe larger point is that a person of conservative views in the academic world faces discrimination and retaliation.
IMHO what the Hettle person did was analogous to outing a person’s homosexuality in an environment where that would produce on the job harassment and discrimination. Given that about 90% of the professors in most Universities are self-described Liberal Democrats this is no exaggeration.
The commenter had reason to conceal his political viewpoints from his academic environment because they would cause retaliation. A conservative straight white male is pretty much enemy #1 in academia (hostile work environment).
Hey … wasn’t that the argument in the Minnesota mine case? Heh.
Jim Rockford (e09923) — 11/10/2005 @ 7:49 pm“There’s nothing scummy about my posting that information. For Actus to imply otherwise is indicative of a guy who either 1) didn’t bother to follow the links or 2) has a severe reasoning deficiency.”
I think its scummy for you to give us his work number and work email and tell us not to involve his employer. I think its scummy for you to get the information from his work — that site looks like its not even his — and tell us that this has nothing to do with his employer. It clearly does. Now, you may tell us his employer is already involved, or he has already involved his employer, but its still scummy.
Then again, I don’t know how many readers you have. It would be scummier for someone to post this sort of info on a highly trafficked site, like a malkin, than on my crappy and rightfulyl ignored blog.
I’m assuming this site is on the higher end of traffic. So you want us all to send on to him our disapproval. On his work email and phone. How many are you expecting him to get? Do you think he’ll be overwhelmed? harassed? Do you think that sort of thing happens in these situations? What do you think this will add to just how he feels, besides annoying and harassing him more?
This is whats really scummy. You’re a smart guy and you’re asking us all to overwhelm this guy to tell him something he already knows: he was over the line. It goes beyond corrective to punitive. And you’re smart enough to know that. Just like the prof was smart enough to be able to know that what he was doing was unacceptable.
Also, if you want to help Paul, counsel him to lay off. Any harm that may have been done by an over-the-line professor has been magnified intensily by Pauls subsequent behavior. He’s getting wise counsel to do so, but blows it off as coming from leftists. This is something that can really hurt him, so it would be a nice gesture to have some righties tell him to lay off and simply display the impropriety of Hettle.
actus (c9e62e) — 11/10/2005 @ 7:57 pmI think its scummy for you to give us his work number and work email and tell us not to involve his employer. I think its scummy for you to get the information from his work — that site looks like its not even his — and tell us that this has nothing to do with his employer. It clearly does. Now, you may tell us his employer is already involved, or he has already involved his employer, but its still scummy.
His employer is not involved. His employer should not *be* involved. This has nothing to do with his employer, whatsoever. And I have said nothing inconsistent with that.
But do I think that it would be tragic if he got 2-3 e-mails and/or phone calls calling him to task for what you appear to admit is an egregious overreach? No, I don’t. (It won’t be more than 2-3, and I bet it’s none. You needn’t overestimate my traffic — and if you want to check it, my Site Meter is public.) And if those e-mails happen to come to his work address, or the phone calls happen to come to his work, so what?
You apparently think this guy should be immune from some direct negative feedback for a lowlife act such as this. Well, I don’t.
But don’t pretend I’m trying to somehow put his job in jeopardy through your sly little leftist insinuation.
For once in your life, Actus, I want you to be crystal clear about what you’re talking about or what you’re objecting to. You’re a smart guy too, and you know that by using a vague phrase like “involve[] his employer,” you can make it sound like I’m trying to put this guy’s job in jeopardy — but any such accusation is 100% complete and total bullshit and you know it. I think actions like that are way, way out of line. It’s the reason I think this guy is scum — and if any of my readers do the same thing in my name, I’m writing them off.
Don’t you dare imply otherwise.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 11/10/2005 @ 8:53 pmFWIW, though, I almost picked up the phone myself tonight and called him to ask him what the hell he was thinking. I dialed 5 numbers and then decided that I didn’t want to get that involved.
Paul, if you’re reading this, consider my previous comments as advice to be very careful what you do. I’m not really in a position to judge your actions towards the scumbag professor, since I believe he has gone out of his way to jeopardize your career. “Asshat” is too kind a word for people like him. But I do suggest that you be careful, and don’t do anything hasty.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 11/10/2005 @ 9:02 pm“You apparently think this guy should be immune from some direct negative feedback for a lowlife act such as this. Well, I don’t.”
My point is you’re kinda late to the game and I’m sure he’s already gotten it. I’m sure everyone in america would like to take a minute to tell the guy what he did was wrong. But I don’t see why we need to ring his phone that many times. I don’t see why this needs to be taken to the level of promoting further annoyance of him, rather than just demonstrating what he has done. You want to give him a piece of lip he’s already gotten, and you want more people to do so. And I think that’s scummy.
‘His employer is not involved.’
You took his work number and emails from a site of his employer. And these are his *work* email and number. And you tell me his work information is “all public.” That’s pretty much thanks to his employer.
“But don’t pretend I’m trying to somehow put his job in jeopardy through your sly little leftist insinuation.”
I don’t think his job is in jeopardy. I don’t know what causes you to lose tenure, but I don’t think your calls and emails will do the trick. If anything, writing more about it on your blog will do the trick more. My ‘sly little leftists insinuation’ is more ‘misplaced wingut paranoia’ then.
“You’re a smart guy too, and you know that by using a vague phrase like “involve[] his employer,” you can make it sound like I’m trying to put this guy’s job in jeopardy — but any such accusation is 100% complete and total bullshit and you know it.”
I think you’re involving his employer by encouraging contacting him at work and via his work contact methods with information you get from his employer’s (and probably not his own) communications about his advising a student group. His employer may not know it, but they are involved.
I think I listed this in my first post.
actus (c9e62e) — 11/10/2005 @ 9:38 pmI think Paul should forget the lawyer, forget the creep in Iowa and cool off. He concern should be that his advisors get a careful explanation of the legitimacy of his actions (assuming he didn’t go for her identity).
RJN (c3a4a3) — 11/10/2005 @ 10:17 pmSorry for the typo (His).
All of this situation should now be just between Paul and his advisors. The rest of the story should be over. Paul has done the world a small service in exposing yet another nest of creepy crawlies; so, good for him, and now on to the future.
Paul should understand that he aspires to a level where this stuff is for breakfast. Deal with it, and put it into the past.
RJN (c3a4a3) — 11/11/2005 @ 12:35 amRepercussions
It’s the kind of leftist group-think on display in this episode that prevents conservatives and moderates from getting into the academy. It accounts for why I’ve had only one semi-moderate professor who admitted to sort-of supporting the war in Iraq….
Cardinal Martini (59ce3a) — 11/11/2005 @ 12:56 amYou kids are so young!
Science-fiction fandom has been stuffed and overstuffed with fan feuds, hysterical threats, and splashy lawsuits since it began with the creation of the Science Fiction League in 1935. Typically, the lawsuits were settled out of court, since nobody in fandom in those days was worth more than $2.75 — clothes, pocket change, blood chemicals and all (I’m paraphrasing Asimov).
I’m not quite that old, of course; but in the scant thirty-four years I’ve lurked at the periphery of those fans, I have seen so many situations like unto the Paul story above that I couldn’t even begin to count them.
The ontogeny of the blogosphere is simply recapitulating the phylogeny of fandom… ook ook!
Don’t even worry about it; if Paul’s dissertation advisor uses this excuse to tell him to quit blogging, or whatever he implied, then he was already itching for a shot at doing so.
Wally is obviously the biggest butthead on the beach right now; but I’m hearing the “Three Blind Mice” tune in my head (should I see a doctor about that?), and I’m not unmindful of its connection with the Three Stooges.
Dafydd
P.S. How come no one ever crosses the street to reveal my identity? What am I, chopped liver?
Dafydd (3095fc) — 11/11/2005 @ 2:41 amGive me a friggin’ break. My wife calls me at work every day, sometimes to complain about something she thinks I did wrong, or wrongly failed to do. That’s hardly the same as “getting my employer involved” in the matter, any more than calling the guy at home would be “getting the phone company involved” or emailing him at home would be “getting his ISP involved” in the matter. You do understand the difference between emailing somebody and emailing his ISP, right?
Xrlq (428dfd) — 11/11/2005 @ 6:53 amPatterico:
This little nugget of bullshit mars your overall point, which is right on.
Who is Wally Hecht working with/for? Nobody – he’s just some weenie.
biwah (f5ca22) — 11/11/2005 @ 7:17 am“You do understand the difference between emailing somebody and emailing his ISP, right?”
Yes. In both cases the ISP’s resources are being used and the ISP may or may not have rules about what is acceptable use of the ISP’s resources. And I also understand that if you get too many personal calls at work some employers get upset.
And you’re more likely to find such restrictions at work. Where he may be expected to, you know, work, rather than answer phone calls from people he doesn’t want to talk to that will tell him something he already did wrong.
Lastly, there is the fact that this information came from his employer’s communication. Like I said, the employer is involved. It may not know it. But it could: Many people have filters on their email at work.
actus (c9e62e) — 11/11/2005 @ 7:23 amWally specifically told commenters at B****PHD’s website where he works and that he’s a tenured PHD. Wasn’t it Wally that involved his employer?
DRJ (15ed57) — 11/11/2005 @ 8:47 am” Wasn’t it Wally that involved his employer?”
It certainly could be. I addressed that in my post. It could certainly be someone other than patterico that involved the employer. But involved he is.
actus (c9e62e) — 11/11/2005 @ 9:00 amIt certainly could be. I addressed that in my post. It could certainly be someone other than patterico that involved the employer. But involved he is.
If by “involving” the employer you mean “making public who employs Wally Hettle” then he most certainly is the one who “involved” them, as any simpleton can learn from simply following the links in the post. There’s no “could be” about it, for anyone whose IQ exceeds par golf and who bothers to read the linked material.
How else do you interpret this direct quote from Wally:
I find it kind of amusing that Hettle (or anyone else like Actus who appears to take up his cause to some degree) might be offended by the idea that it might be so incredibly disruptive to his work to get a couple of e-mails or phone calls at his work address. Meanwhile, he’s out actively trying to trash the career of a man with a family, and for what offense? For mildly expressing disdain for a poorly reasoned leftist argument. That, Prof. Hettle found worthy of contacting Paul Deignan’s faculty advisors.
And Actus has only mild criticism for that. Why, it’s about on the same level as encouraging people to e-mail or call this guy, using contact information he actively enouraged people to seek out, and inquire just what the hell he thought he was doing.
It’s clear that the man’s leftist politics insulate him from any real criticism from Actus, because Actus is increasingly revealing himself to be intellectually dishonest.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 11/11/2005 @ 9:47 amActus, why do you say something “could be” true that you know damn well *is* true? Could it be that you’re trying to distort the facts to make me look bad, and take the focus off your pal, career-trashing Wally?
Patterico (4e4b70) — 11/11/2005 @ 9:51 am“If by “involving” the employer you mean “making public who employs Wally Hettle” then he most certainly is the one who “involved” them,”
I think you’ve done more than make public who employs him. Whether there is any ambiguity about him mentioning his employer, I don’t think there is any when it comes to you telling people to bug him at work with his employers resourcesw with the information his employer gives out. So it ‘could be’ in the sense that some people, like you, might find that mentioning an employer is not ‘involvement.’ And I’m conceding that to you.
‘Meanwhile, he’s out actively trying to trash the career of a man with a family, and for what offense?’
He sent one email. I agree that Hettle should receive back an authoritative and convincing argument that he was out of line. And perhaps even his boss. I agree that the proper — and also smart — thing for Paul to have done was to write a post explaining what happened, rather than freaking out.
‘Actus, why do you say something “could be” true that you know damn well *is* true? ‘
Because I’m conceding to you that mentioning an employer is not necessarily involvement. I think bugging someone at work with their work resources is. This a statement of concession. Not an attempt to make you look bad. If anything its a recognition of your point.
Not everyone in this world is against and out to get you. Sheesh. The right wing loses a few elections and all of a sudden everyone has to walk on eggshells around them. I thought they were sore winners. Sounds like they’re even worse losers. Its going to be madness come Nov 06.
actus (ebc508) — 11/11/2005 @ 10:10 amI’m no fan of Diegnan, he’s a jerk. But in this case, it’s Hettle who’s outside the bounds acceptable conduct.
Hettle’s reprehensible attempt to silence Deignan’s right to freedom of speech is so far out of bounds that no responsible voice would stoop to attempt to make excuses for such an egregious wrong.
That Hettle is himself protected by tenure at the same time he attempts to influence Deignan’s dissertation advisors is beyond inappropriate, and in my view nothing short of criminal misconduct. If the law will allow, Deignan should sue his ass off.
Hettle is one of those small minds, the hollow men poets warn us about.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 11/11/2005 @ 10:51 amI think an interesting thought experiment is to imagine what kind of an email someone would send to paul’s advisors if they cared for paul and thought paul’s commenting and (perhaps) trolling under his real name would hurt pauls career. And how could hettle have written his email to make it more about that?
Would one never send such an email? I.e., it is never appropriate to counsel the advisor, if the student is hurting himself? It’s really the student’s problem?
actus (ebc508) — 11/11/2005 @ 10:55 amactus, have you no shame?
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 11/11/2005 @ 11:04 am“actus, have you no shame?”
I guess its never appropriate.
actus (ebc508) — 11/11/2005 @ 11:16 amWally is a tattletale. As such he is entitled to all the rights and priviliges as holders of such an office are entitled and accorded on the playground of life.
not a yank (c7be4e) — 11/11/2005 @ 11:45 amJust saw the thread.
The anonymous blogger bit is touchy. There are two essential problems. One is that if this comes to a lawsuit, the blogger will need to be named. She is involved inextricably since she made the same statements as Hettle and publishes the blog. The second is that notifying her of the potential consequences, since she has otherwise recalcitrant, is the best tool for a speedy resolution.
I can’t correct Wally without addressing her and I can’t realistically address her without the threat of a lawsuit which does carry the deterent of public accountability. Of course, anyone could “out” her themselves if they wanted. I am not using any special information. She basically publishes her own identity. At least I will agree to forget it if she corrects. I don’t think Leiter had any such cause for action other than he didn’t like someone.
Paul Deignan (47d1f5) — 11/11/2005 @ 11:46 amactus, have you no shame?
If you have followed actus’ comments at this site at all, you would know the answer to that question.
rls (0516f0) — 11/11/2005 @ 11:54 amActus,
If one is truly concerned about Paul Deignan and his internet issues, I think it would be appropriate to contact his wife, family or perhaps a friend but only if they are known to you. I do not think there is or was any reasonable basis to contact his employer, school, or advisers.
DRJ (15ed57) — 11/11/2005 @ 11:55 am“I do not think there is or was any reasonable basis to contact his employer, school, or advisers.”
I think that’s a reasonable answer. We are powerless to just watch the trainwreck.
actus (ebc508) — 11/11/2005 @ 12:05 pmPatterico,
Saw your comment. It is not a situation that is best handles by flames of any sort. Sure, I’ve been absorbing some heat lately from the lefties, fine–we’ve heard it all before. It is interestingto watch as a psyhological study however.
Since I currently under review for jobs, clearances, etc., and since these insidious characterizations (sorry to say) actually do have a great impact on my prospects if left unchallenged, I do need to act. Wally pretty much forced my hand in it by contacting the advisors and threatening to contact the administration.
Sure, he is a not being truthful. They don’t know that. In engineering we do try to avoid these politics (so instead we work out our ideas on law blawgs–while maybe just me).
So everything must be documented and explained in roughly the same forum as the libel. The other option was to ignore, but that is pretty impossible under these circumstances. Frankly, I don’t think this happens much (first I know of) and would not like to see it become a precedent. Just about everyone is a student at some point and also unfortunately, the universities are full of Hettles. Mostly we attempt to avoid them by not going to UNI and taking their course. Now the virus has spread.
Should we not discuss (sometimes pointedly) with others? That’s not safe for our democracy, I think. The Red-Blue divide exists not simply because people happen to be born in a certain region. As a result we run the risk of these traps. Note how we have not had reasoned debate on certain topics of national concern to any significant degree (and so we, as Miers said, leave these things up to the court). We see where that gets us–Kelo and Casey, etc.
Big deal. We have a little dispute on the web. The left gets to show why they can’t be taken seriously in politics and how they have corrupted our schools. It is eventually good for everyone as long as there is communication. It gives us something to think about as it evolves. Naturally, many people see things differently. We are not looking for concensus as in a popularity contest, we come to the web (I hope) to learn something and perhaps have some comaradarie (but not too much. This is still a virtual community. Face to face human relations should still be irreplaceable). The point is that we have a good example here in how things actually can be worked out well and with principle.
I’ve been training my whole life for this job of being the “jerk”, “wanker”, “pissant”, “pimple”, whatever. Watch me. In the end we will have an example, that I hope we can say, is a good one on moving dialogue forward. Avoidance is not an option. And in the end, we (and I) will win and I will collect those two (pathetic) bottles of wine as trophies as well as the apologies and retraction and I will do it in the right manner with the right vigor for the right reason.
Thanks, you came in at the right time.
Paul Deignan (47d1f5) — 11/11/2005 @ 12:18 pmActus,
I published the Walley letter. Try to defend it.
Paul Deignan (47d1f5) — 11/11/2005 @ 12:20 pm“I published the Walley letter. Try to defend it.”
I think it should be published because its indefensible. And that’s where I think it should end because otherwise you do more damage than the letter did.
actus (ebc508) — 11/11/2005 @ 12:35 pmPatterico et al
linclon (dfaf29) — 11/11/2005 @ 12:43 pmI’ve fllowed the blow-up about Wally et al and it sems clear to me Wally wa trying to injure a graduate student
Clearly, Wally is a twit, and attempting to harm Mr Deignan’s career over his rather tame comments on the hoser’s blog is reprehensible, but the lawsuit is silly.
Can you imagine trying to prove damages? Mr Deignans advisors must have been quaking in their boots when they heard that the mighty Wally Hettle of the University of Northern Iowa was on the line. Puhleeze.
285exp (47ad59) — 11/11/2005 @ 1:15 pmThe FLAP: Paul Deignan v. Wallace Hettle and Bitch Ph.D
Patterico has Scumbag of the Day: Wally Hettle
FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog (baa0b4) — 11/11/2005 @ 2:38 pmProtein Widsom has most of the FLAP with What repercussions? (updated to include Hettle’s email to Deignan’s advisor)
Read both of these posts and the comments. Read all of them.
Paul D…
In general, I would agree with actus.
Unfortunately, it seems that these tactics can be successful. So, what to do? We can allow it to become prevalent and we end with the PC culture where everyone is afraid to say anything that might be “offensive”. Or we can take the miscreants to task on occassion. If we do this for the most egregious cases, we will not have to worry about the mass of potential cases.
There will always be a fine line where we say, “Well, maybe next time” or “There is something not quite to my liking with this case”. Fair enough, it always is going to be a fine call. Now I personally have never heard of this sort of thing before. It seems to me to be potentially a new trend. It happened in the classroom and now it is happening outside the classroom. Of course, it is always the nail that sticks up that gets it, i.e. that peculiar combination of factors where there is the most friction.
I know that without a potential lawsuit, this action by Wally would have succeeded in having a chilling effect as well as a very negative effect on me personally. Wally would not retract the statement or correct it by his own volition so he needs encouragement. Since he crossed a legal threshold there is potentially a legal consequence. That provides the framework for establishing the boundaries of the problem.
Seriously, short of a lawsuit or threat thereof, what would produce this retraction? Without a retraction my advisors, like anyone else, would take this guy at face value (and have). Note that his letter to them was nothing like his flamethrowing on the web. All you need to do is say that this guy should retract apologize and correct. If he did that earlier, we wouldn’t be spending time on it now.
The same goes for Wally’s friend. Otherwise anytime we communicate with a person on the net we run the risk of that person turning around and claiming that the communication was criminal. Unbelievably, a lie repeated broadly enough does get picked up by a significant number of people. Now with Google, that lie gets picked up on an individual basis also.
When they lie about politics, there are many people to stand against them. When they lie aginst one or a couple people, there are fewer that are directly concerned. So in the individual case we have strict guidlines on what is too far. Name calling is not, libel is. Libel on the web in connection with an event like Wally’s action is something that is perhaps worthy of some general interst. In any case, it is something that I will fight and that fight itself might be interesting to others.
When and if there are breakthroughs, I post them.
Paul Deignan (d2fd7b) — 11/11/2005 @ 3:19 pmActus sez:
I agree that Hettle should receive back an authoritative and convincing argument that he was out of line. And perhaps even his boss.
There’s the difference right there. Actus says we should maybe get Hettle’s boss involved. I emphatically say we should not. Unlike Actus, I don’t think that actions that might put someone’s employment at risk are justifiable under these circumstances.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 11/11/2005 @ 4:18 pmPaul is bailing his boat in reverse. The more he writes, the more he appears obsessed by this affair, the more, it seems to me, that he is moving towards Walley’s remarks about his “politiking”.
I admire the concept of confronting any Marxist pissants that infect the academy, I might even admire it if (I am joking) Paul threw himself on his sword; but, this business of a high buck lawsuit seems doomed from the beginning and thus not so admirable.
One more thing: I know that our comments might give the enemy comfort, and perhaps ammunition, but I don’t care. Paul threw this out into the open, and for better or worse, what happens is his to prize or lament.
RJN (c3a4a3) — 11/11/2005 @ 4:48 pm“So, what to do? We can allow it to become prevalent and we end with the PC culture where everyone is afraid to say anything that might be “offensive”.”
I think that the fact that people stop acting like jerks because it might hurt their careers is a good thing.
“Unlike Actus, I don’t think that actions that might put someone’s employment at risk are justifiable under these circumstances.”
My only justification for it is in order to equate it to what has happened to to Paul — and it is also mitigated by Hettle’s tenure. It does have a bit of a ‘good for the goose’ bit: notice to the boss. But the problem is that the boss is unlikely to just receive notice, but rather, to receive bombardment.
Overall, I’m convinced by your argument that it would be out of line.
actus (ebc508) — 11/11/2005 @ 4:54 pmactus,
So are you in favor of Wally retracting and correcting or not?
Paul Deignan (d2fd7b) — 11/11/2005 @ 5:09 pmI think that the fact that people stop acting like jerks because it might hurt their careers is a good thing.
Couldn’t disagree more. Free speech is a rough-and-tumble affair. As Paul found out well before this incident, being abrasive can cost you credibility among people who read you; certainly more than one valued commenter here has been put off by his mode of expressing himself. But *that* should be the cost, not messing with someone’s career.
I am respectful of anonymous commenters, Actus, and I understand a desire not to have your name made public. But I would think that anonybloggers like yourself would be *doubly* respectful of the need not to pose threats to someone’s career.
After all, there must be a reason you don’t tell us your name.
As I said, I don’t need to know that reason, and I respect your decision to remain anonymous — and I would be furious at anyone who tried to “out” you. I would urge the world to heap scorn on anyone who tried that. I’m dead serious about that.
But your comments suggesting that people should have to pay a real-world price for their comments have virtually no credibility as far as I am concerned, since you’re apparently not willing to put your own name on the line.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 11/11/2005 @ 5:09 pmSo are you in favor of Wally retracting and correcting or not?
That’s the issue. Assuming that Wally’s statement is untrue, he should simply take it back. I assume he is enough of an ass that this is unlikely — but it would be the right thing to do.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 11/11/2005 @ 5:10 pmRJN,
While this is in the hands of my attorney, I do have time to write.
As I said, all Wally has to do is retract, correct, and apologize. Are we agreed on that atleast?
Paul Deignan (d2fd7b) — 11/11/2005 @ 5:13 pmPaul:
When a fellow sets out to get a PhD, he involves others who were there first. Others over the years, and generations, built the academy from which he seeks validation and honors. It seems to me it is your advisors you have to orient on and impress, not some internet flakes. God Bless, and good luck.
I actually like you, and hope you reach the broad uplands of middle age (Churchill) content.
RJN (c3a4a3) — 11/11/2005 @ 6:09 pmRJN,
Thanks, perhaps I have cheated my advisors in the normal arrangement of things. To be a Purdue engineer is something akin to an employee/technician–I chose the education instead.
My goal is not contentment, it is to change the world for the better. (Whether through military service, research, or this small application).
Perhaps I should give them those bottles of wine when I win (the WFW III, not the SCOTUS WFW).
Paul Deignan (d2fd7b) — 11/11/2005 @ 6:47 pm“So are you in favor of Wally retracting and correcting or not?”
I have no idea if what he said is correct or not. I think someone who cares about your career should tell you to quit acting the way you do under your real name. I think an advisor is a good person to do that. I think Wally’s email may have had that effect. I’m not so sure that was the intent. I’m also not so sure it was meant to scuttle your career.
“Free speech is a rough-and-tumble affair.”
And so is being collegial at work. This is a country with at-will employment, where your boss doesn’t have to respect your free speech. And especially when you do it from work. While in general I think that this surrenders our speech powers to those who own — and do hiring — I do think that it has the positive effect of keeping people from being offensive jerks. But yes, overall, I don’t think our speech should be controlled by those with capital in our society.
Of course, one could always go work for places that hire jerks. Like bill o’reilly has done.
“But your comments suggesting that people should have to pay a real-world price for their comments have virtually no credibility as far as I am concerned, since you’re apparently not willing to put your own name on the line.”
In general that is the price of being anonymous. And it does make what wally did a bit more tolerable: he did it under his own name.
actus (c9e62e) — 11/12/2005 @ 9:18 amIn general that is the price of being anonymous. And it does make what wally did a bit more tolerable: he did it under his own name.
Nah. Wally is a wuss, because his tenure means he won’t face any real consequences. He’d never act this way if he were really risking something. I recognize the type.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 11/12/2005 @ 9:55 am“He’d never act this way if he were really risking something. ”
I guess in that way he’s a bit smarter than Paul, who seems to be on the threshold of Jerk, PhD.
actus (c9e62e) — 11/12/2005 @ 10:14 amI guess in that way he’s a bit smarter than Paul, who seems to be on the threshold of Jerk, PhD.
And in a much bigger way, he is more of a coward.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 11/12/2005 @ 10:33 amPatterico, I would assume that Wally still has a reputation to defend at his university. If the people he works with found out about this, his life could be unpleasant for a long while. Not to take up for his actions, but there could be consequences for his transgression.
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/12/2005 @ 10:57 am“Not to take up for his actions, but there could be consequences for his transgression.”
I have no idea why Patterico keeps on imagining that Wally is immune comparable to Paul. From what I gather, Paul’s censure has been quite light, and his advisors seem to be rather clueless — even after the letter — about all that Paul is up to. Overall, it looks like shaming effect on Wally is pretty equivalent. Though Paul does keep pushing it to make himself coume out worse.
actus (ebc508) — 11/12/2005 @ 11:01 amI have no idea why Patterico keeps on imagining that Wally is immune comparable to Paul. From what I gather, Paul’s censure has been quite light, and his advisors seem to be rather clueless — even after the letter — about all that Paul is up to. Overall, it looks like shaming effect on Wally is pretty equivalent. Though Paul does keep pushing it to make himself coume out worse.
The answer is simple: tenure. It’s not a matter of shaming. It’s a matter of threat to one’s employment. Do you mean to tell me you really, really didn’t understand that, Actus?
And any “censure” is likely just the beginning of his problems, given the accusation that he has been a malicious hacker of some sort, as well as the accusation that he has “threatened” Wally. There are potential future consequences to those accusations. So Wally, having made them, should put up or shut-up-and-retract.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 11/12/2005 @ 12:11 pm“The answer is simple: tenure. It’s not a matter of shaming. It’s a matter of threat to one’s employment. Do you mean to tell me you really, really didn’t understand that, Actus?”
I understood it. I think the effect on Pauls employment from the letter has been small. The effect from the shaming is different though. And to some extent, Wally is exposed to that as well. Though not cash-wise, perhaps in other aspects of his career.
“There are potential future consequences to those accusations. ”
The ones in the private email Wally sent seem to be not so bad.
actus (ebc508) — 11/12/2005 @ 12:30 pmScience-fiction fandom has been stuffed and overstuffed with fan feuds, hysterical threats, and splashy lawsuits since it began with the creation of the Science Fiction League in 1935. Typically, the lawsuits were settled out of court, since nobody in fandom in those days was worth more than $2.75 — clothes, pocket change, blood chemicals and all (I’m paraphrasing Asimov).
Isn’t that the truth, now as well as then. 😉
Stephen M (Ethesis) (28f8eb) — 11/12/2005 @ 1:47 pmWally Hettle acted like a dumbass; I don’t think anyone on either side of the political aisle disagrees with that.
But Mr. Deignan’s legal threats, the tone thereof, and the willingness to sue and tar BPhD in this thing – and I’m normally all for paying lawyers – is really obnoxious. Not as obnoxious as Hettle, but obnoxious nonetheless.
Additionally, while the legal threats may well be real, they have the tone and general appearance similar to bluffs. Whether they are or aren’t, they’re an inappropriate response as to BPhD.
–JRM
JRM (5e00de) — 11/13/2005 @ 11:47 pm#1-
“If this upsets you, you can let Wally know how you feel. His e-mail is liberalwally@yahoo.com — or you can reach him at work at wallace.hettle@uni.edu. His phone number is (319) 273-2942.”
This is pretty scummy.
Don’t look now but it almost appears as if actus has categorically recognized that blackball campaigns are, well… wrong.
I know he’ll be contacting liberal Prof Hettle forthwith to unreservedly condemn his actions on the same principle – since after all actus’ comments are driven by reasoned principle not political bias.
Right? Oops – forgot that principle is too relative a thing to exist in a reality-based reality. Still, so close…
Scott (57c0cc) — 11/14/2005 @ 1:16 pmHere’s Wally “the prof” in action, calling names in one breath and then judging the target as “unprofessional” in the next – what we have here in the form of Wally and “Bitch” are the worst examples of abuse of power in “higher” education and I hope this blows wide open:
Troll boy is a student of the highly relevant field of mechanical engineering.
The moron is trolling under his real name from a home page which lists the names of his
advisors. So I emailed them, as this behavior is thoroughly unprofessional.
BTW, I have a PhD and actual tenure. And I happen to know many profs who work from
home, like myself.
I’ve read some of Dr. B’s scholarship and it is superb.
Maybe Paul can come back after finishing HIS dissertation–if he finishes.
Anyway, Paul, I’m going to make an acquaintance with the admin. of your engineering school
tomorrow, but I’m logging off for tonight.
Wallace Hettle
Actual Professor
Google Me
University of Northern Iowa
It’s one thing for normally professional folks to use the written/electronic medium to act like cranky toddlers – as long as they keep it to the chat rooms.
This nimrod crossed that line, apparently thinking the world should rightly cower at the approach of his vast and looming tenure, and if people like Paul just roll over and silently accept this behavior then it’s only going to get worse.
It’s that simple.
Scott (57c0cc) — 11/14/2005 @ 1:45 pm