High Crimes, Misdemeanors & ‘The La Sierra 4’
by Nate Schilt
As the knight writers of Adventist progressivism stampede into the legal fog they have created in order to find moral illumination – before the echoes fade from their triumphal proclamations: “We have the Truth, the moral way is clear” – let’s take a closer look at where they have come from and where they are going before we decide to follow. I suspect we’ll find a lot of indignant, self-righteous, legalists, unable or unwilling to even acknowledge the moral clarity they claim to have discovered can only be seen with progressive blinders.
A number of arguments have been advanced on Facebook, Twitter, and the blogosphere to morally and legally indict the General Conference (G.C.) and La Sierra University (LSU) for using the evidence of an inadvertently recorded, carelessly distributed, confidential conversation to induce incriminating admissions and resignations from what are becoming known as the “La Sierra 4” (LSU4). I will not dwell long on the legal argument since, based on the rationale advanced thus far, I believe it to be utterly without merit.
It goes as follows: California Penal Code Section 632 criminalizes the recording of a confidential communication without the knowledge and consent of the participants. P.C. 632 evinces a strong public policy in favor of privacy protection. That public policy might lead a court to justify the extension of P.C. 632 to individuals who transcribe, record or otherwise use the recording of a communication intended to be confidential, regardless of whether the recording itself was made in violation of P.C. 632, and regardless of whether reasonable steps were taken to protect and maintain the privacy of the communication.
Thus, the argument concludes, Church and University officials who used the recorded evidence to obtain admissions and resignations from the LSU4 might well have been guilty of criminal offenses. “Mind you,” the knight writers benignantly protest, “we’re not accusing anyone of anything. We’re just suggesting…er, you know…there really might be a reasonable legal argument here. And…um…we think it would probably be a good idea for certain Church and University officials to start lawyering up – or at least repent and recant.”
I believe this argument for criminal liability is arrant nonsense. I am hardly naïve about the penchant judges have for imposing their moral values on society, regardless of public will, legislative basis, or the Constitution. But when it comes to criminal laws, the creative impulses of the courts over the past 50 years have always gone in the direction of reducing criminal liability, expanding rights of the accused, and narrowly construing criminal statutes. The wide range within which tabloid journalism, paparazzi, and private investigators operate suggests a public policy that not only protects privacy, but also narrowly circumscribes the sphere in which privacy invasions can be subject to criminal sanctions. Most privacy expectations are not reasonable, and almost always – as occurred in the case of the infamous LSU4 recording – careless disclosure vitiates the legal privacy claim.
Because the criminal theory strikes me as such a far-fetched and fatuous diversion, I tend to suspect those who advance it either have too much time on their hands or, more likely, they have an agenda to create populist talking points for progressives that will make their moral case against the G.C. and LSU administration appear more compelling.
Every invasion of a privacy expectation is not an occasion for moral flagellation. Would we condemn a woman for hiring a private investigator when she reasonably suspects her spouse of infidelity? Would we condemn a husband for confronting his wife for infidelity when he finds evidence in a diary which has been carelessly left by her bedside? What are the moral implications of reporting and/or acting on what was clearly intended to be private, but was carelessly exposed through no wrongdoing of the 'exposee?'
Suppose you are a male, and your attractive female neighbor neglects to fully close the curtains in her bedroom window, inadvertently exposing herself to your view as she is disrobing. Would you be within your legal rights to take a photograph? Sure. But it would be morally reprehensible. And the fact that you refrained from illegally installing hidden cameras in her bedroom would hardly attenuate your moral culpability.
But suppose you had instead observed the neighbor lady mercilessly beating her toddler through that window, with the same expectation of privacy. When you grabbed your camera to take a picture, and called 911, would we not agree that invasion of that privacy expectation was a moral duty?
Those are easy cases. Now, let’s change the picture. The neighbor is your SDA pastor. He closes the curtains so that he, his wife, the head elder and the elder’s wife can share a bottle of wine, undetected. But there’s still an opening in the curtains, and through that opening, from your home, you observe the forbidden indulgences. Can we at least agree now that the moral question has become a bit murkier? If you said, no, you are hereby excused from reading further. Now let’s change the hypothetical just slightly. You are the conference president. You didn’t observe the drinking, but the neighbor who did has presented you with the photographic evidence of what he saw from his home. The neighbor clearly expects you will act on this information.
Now call me a moral cretin if you wish. But I think the conference president has a tough choice. On the one hand, he can conscientiously ignore the evidence on the grounds that what the pastor and church members do when they have a privacy expectation is nobody’s business but their own. This seems to be the SDA progressive position. But this option will outrage 90% of the church members who use common sense rather than moral micrometers to set standards and prioritize moral and religious values. They tend to believe that a pastor and head elder being comfortable with a lifestyle that includes alcohol consumption is a bigger deal than observing, recording and reporting what the pastor and head elder assumed was totally private. On the other extreme, the conference president can summarily fire the pastor, strip him of his credentials and recommend that all four imbibers be dis-fellowshipped.
Do you see any parallels here? It is tempting to look at the misfortune suffered by the LSU4, and forget that harsher consequences could have been imposed. They could have been fired from all positions with the University, including their faculty appointments. The transcript of the tape could have been released to the public. The G.C. could have attempted to make a spectacle of the LSU4 and embarrass the University. Wisely, none of these actions were undertaken. Yes, I know. For a liberal, this argument is the rough equivalent of justifying sleep deprivation for 'freedom fighters' by the CIA on the grounds that the CIA could have resorted to waterboarding. You’ll just have to indulge my penchant for the world of common sense. You’d think in 35 years of lawyering I would have been able to escape that benighted redoubt. But I haven’t.
I do not think one can reasonably argue, given the copies of the recording that were floating about, that the G.C. or LSU could just do nothing once the evidence came to their attention. Howls of protest would have arisen from Church members who think the wrongdoing of the LSU4 should eclipse and render moot any moral concerns about reliance on evidence that would never have come to light but for the carelessness of one of the LSU4.
In conclusion, reflect with me about what might have happened had the LSU4 asked me to be their attorney before going into the fateful meetings on June 10. I would of course have told them not to talk and not to resign. We would have demanded due process and a hearing, should attempts have been made to terminate them. My responsibility as an attorney would not have been to the Church or to La Sierra. My only concern would be the best possible outcome for the LSU4. I do not know what procedures La Sierra has in place for disciplinary action. But my suspicion is the academicians who would probably end up hearing the case would be very receptive to the argument that it would be unchristian and immoral to use the recording against these gentlemen. Do I agree with that argument? No, but I think it would have prevailed, and I think these men would have 'walked'. I believe that knowledgeable experts presently advocating for them think exactly the same thing, and that is why they want to turn back the clock and undo the resignations.
However, success in vacating the resignations and defending the LSU4 would, in my opinion, grievously injure both La Sierra and the larger Church. It would isolate La Sierra and alienate it from the overwhelming majority of Church members who view alcohol as one of the seven deadly sins of Adventism (yes, I know there are really many more than seven). It would destroy trust at a time when trust is already in short supply. La Sierra needs the Church, and the Church needs La Sierra. It pains me greatly the recording was made and that it came to light. I feel terrible for the gentlemen. But intellectual honesty prevents me from joining the progressive lynch mob, which, like conservative fundamentalist lynch mobs, begins with politicized, a priori notions about good and evil that distort and oversimplify nuanced, complex moral issues. Given many bad and difficult options, asking for the resignations was the wisest course. And although supporters of the LSU4 are angry, and the LSU4 now appear to be experiencing resigners’ remorse, I firmly believe that resignation was the honorable and right thing to do under the circumstances.
Finally, is this a voice of reason from the wilderness that is Atoday?
When does anyone expect “reasonableness” in such situations?
Agreed, that the LSU 4 should not have signed anything without their own legal advice. The subtrefuge was a call to the office with no information on the agenda, another mistake.
To write of “copies of the recording that were floating about,” is to suggest that someone (?) made them public without the permission of the four who had no intention of publicizing them. Please clear this as there is a slight difference in reports on this.
The analogies you give for a parent beating a child, or videotaping a spouse engaged in adultery are not similar at all. In the first instance, we are all legaly required to inform authorities about child abuse; the second instance is personal grounds for divorce–but not criminal activity. But neither is four LSU employees engaging in drinking, dancing, playing cards, or eating meat in their own private home subject to humiliation and firing. Should such employees be expected to be under video survelliance in the future? Will there no such thing as privacy? Will there be breathalyzers before a teacher conducts a class?
The conference or official that terminated these employees must justify their reasoning, while at the same disclosing that private behavior in one’s home is behavior justifying termination. That seems to be a position the conference should not wish to be in.
On another note: Blackmer, a major player in this situation, has no qualifications whatsoever that should qualify him for superintendent of the entire NAD educational department. His CV shows that he has never taught at the collegiate level, does not have a terminal degree (while overseeing hundreds in the SDA system who have this degree) and this undermines the entire process.
Elaine, my understanding is that a copy of the recording was given to another faculty member at La Sierra, a Board member, the G.C., Spectrum, and Erv Taylor. That was the basis for my assumption that there were a number of copies of the recording floating around.
The law obligates only certain statutorily specified classes of individuals to report suspected child abuse. All citizens are not legally obligated to report child abuse. My hypotheticals were not offered as analogies. they were posed to set the stage for an argument that all expectations of privacy are not morally privileged, and to point out that the moral equation is more complex and nuanced than progressive fundamentalists are inclined to acknowledge.
Reasonable people may disagree about whether the tape recording should have been used to obtain resignations. But I don’t see every disagreement as an occasion for high moral dudgeon. Why does the Left frame the debate in good vs. evil rhetoric? I never cease to be amazed by how the Adventist Left resorts to the very self-righteous judgmentalism and legalism which they decry in conservative fundamentalists when their pet issues and sensibilities are offended.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree about the freedom employees and leaders in SDA institutions should have when it comes to conducting private bacchanals – which you suggest is no one else’s business.
BTW, Bob Pickle, this is not an editorial. It is simply a blog – my opinion. I see AToday as an independent “news and views” voice within Adventism that is not ideologically aligned. However, our mission and commitment to openness and transparency within Church institutions, by its very nature, probably places on to the Left of center as an organization.
Well reasoned and written. I think the first person to notice the extra material at the end of the “tape” should have alerted the originator immediately. Neither was it fair for those who received it to pass it along, but there’s nothing juicier in Adventist circles than good gossip.
Nate, thank you for this excellent editorial.
I have not listened to the tapes but there is a huge assumption that all were drinking alcohol and all were making derogatory comments about superiors. Guilt by association is not part of our legal system or to my knowledge part of any church system as well. After all Jesus associated with the scum of society – the liars, tax collectors, prostitutes.
Several years ago, a pastor, in his great wisdom, decided he saw faculty at one of our colleges drinking wine and told his superiors. What a mess…. despite being shown pictures of Martinelli bottles (which is what was served at the head elder’s 50th birthday party, this pastor held to “what I saw.” Reputations tarnished over a mis perception. When will we learn.
Good to think of another viewpoint though. Thanks Nate.
Interesting information, Doctorf. But even if your facts and predictions are correct, it doesn’t really affect my analysis. What is your evidence for the assertion that the GC and LSU legal counsel were “triumphantly smug” in confronting the LSU4? If you have sources for your assertion, how reliable are they? I would have thought that the President of La Sierra and the Chairman of the Board might have been present – no? Do you have a strategic reason for exempting them from your broadside?
I believe in due process, and readily concede that these gentlemen may have legal remedies. I just do not believe the criminal argument is tenable, and I think the moral issue is very debatable.
You correctly note the connection between the resignations and the geo/bio chronology issues at LSU. The claim that these resignations had nothing to do with the controversy surrounding the biology department at LSU is like saying Nixon’s resignation had nothing to do with the Watergate burglary.
As I understand this matter, only one person really lost a teaching position, the gentleman who was in a state of semi retirement and was teaching part time.
The others lost administrative type positions. Were there large fees or great prestige connected to these positions? It appears that the real issue is boiling down to the right of Adventist faculty to consume alsohol in the privacy of their own homes. Certainly ridiculing their superiors can’t be considered a cause for just dismissal.
Years ago, a non LSU faculty member was observed exiting a bar by his college president [so the story goes]. From what I knew of the faculty member, he was burned out on teaching. He quietly left the college for another, probably more lucrative, position. I saw him a few years later and he appeared to be quite happy.
If someone is going to be sued, perhaps it should be the person who not only made a clandestine recording but first circulated it.
I did not read your long post. Private talking should be private, but since everyone knows something about the thinking amd actions of these four in that session, I think resignation is probably the only reasonable solution for church officials to take. Bad-mouthing anyone is probably OK in private. I have overheard conversations about me the participants did not know I overheard. Sometimes these comments have helped me see myself through other eyes, and I don’t hold it against them if they are honest opinions. Even Jesus said things to people they did not like – and not usually behind their backs.
My blog did not address the trash talking aspect of the recorded conversation. We’ll probably never know what role that played in the resignations being requested. But to the extent that the leader of the executive administrative team on which they were major players was an object of scorn in their conversation, I can certainly see how it might be difficult to maintain a relationship of trust and mutual respect that is essential to a healthy executive team. If I as an administrator became aware that individuals on my management team were freely expressing, even in private, feelings that I was a feckless buffoon (I don’t know whether that was conveyed on the recording; I’m just using this as a hypothetical), I would certainly think it reasonable that they be asked to resign. This is why management positions usually do not have the civil service protections that non-management personnel enjoy.
Since two of the individuals asked to resign were not part of the executive team, I am assuming that alcohol consumption alone was deemed a sufficient reason to request the resignations. Therefore, I did not address the legitimate significance of the trash talk.
Private conversations should not be a cause for dismissal. Nor should activities in one’s private home that would never have been known had someone not illegally recorded a private conversation and then released it to the public.
There are several misdemeanors here if California Law is followed giving the resignees sufficient reasons for a suit. Because the belief that the “church is always right” and their pockets are deep, this has not always been proved right.
In a voluntary employment relationship, based on contract, shouldn’t the contract govern expectations, rights and remedies? What higher moral law trumps the right of employers and employees to negotiate the terms of employment? Why does there even need to be good cause for termination? What if the contract says that either party may terminate the relationship at any time without cause? This is known as at-will employment. Do you have a problem with that, Elaine? Let me hasten to add here that I have no idea what the contract or policy terms were for any of the positions from which the LSU4 resigned.
You seem intent on inventing a moral exclusionary rule. The most significant exclusionary rule relating to privacy invasions that I am aware of is, like the Miranda warning rules, rooted in case law “interpreting” the Constitution. It only applies to privacy invasions by state agents, not private individuals. And it certainly does not apply when there has been careless or inadvertent disclosure of what was intended to be private. Since you’re making up your moral standards as you go in this case, Elaine, why not argue that, before confronting the LSU4 and getting statements from them, LSU had a moral obligation to advise them of their right to legal counsel? After all, were there not significant power differences – and was there not a coercive atmosphere? Isn’t it morally reprehensible to ambush naive academicians who assume good faith and fair dealing, without letting them know the nature of the charges, and affording them an opportunity to get legal representation? Why not go for the whole enchilada? Exclude the evidence based upon both privacy invasion and denial of the right to counsel.
Adventists on the Left are eager to use the law as a hammer when it furthers their objectives. But when the law doesn’t seem to yield a desired result, then the legal framework for dispute resolution is disdainfully seen as a license and loophole for the powerful to sidestep the moral consequences of their actions. Who said you can’t have it both ways?
Could you enlighten us regarding the “several misdemeanors” that you see here? You say the Church proceeds on the belief that it is always right. So tell us, Elaine – when was the last time you conceded, on this or any other website, that you might be wrong about your beliefs?
Twelve states forbid the recording of private conversations without the consent of all parties. Those states are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington.[2]
It is a crime in California to intercept or eavesdrop upon any confidential communication, including a telephone call or wire communication, without the consent of all parties. Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632. It is also a crime to disclose information obtained from eavesdropping. However, an individual can still be convicted without disclosing information. Two appellate courts have held that there is no disclosure or publication requirement for violation of the Privacy Act by recording confidential communications without consent. Coulter v. Bank of America, 28 Cal. App. 4th 923 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994). Marich v. MGM/UA Telecommunications, Inc., 113 Cal. App. 4th 415 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
Yes, I agree that the Four should not have been placed in a position to resign without notice of what was to be discussed and without counsel. There may have been a misdemeanor if the tape that was made was not given permission to be disseminated–especially when it was being used against them.
Nor, should one’s home privacy be cause for dismissal when it was a discussion and action totally in privacy. When one’s private converstations and behavior is cause for dismissal, no one can be exempt.
This case is not finished, and there were wrongs done on both sides. We do not yet know the outcome, but hasty action often leads to regrets on all side.
You are of course correct about the law, Elaine. But that begs the question. Theft is a crime; so is murder. But like eavesdropping/illegal recording, they are irrelevant to this discussion. Crimes require that the one committing the prohibited act do so with specific intent. If you inadvertently take something out of a store that you haven’t paid for, causing the alarm to sound as you exit, you are not guilty of theft unless the prosecution can prove that you intended to take the item without paying for it. Similarly, if you forget to turn off the voice recorder on your phone, or inadvertently turn it on, catching a private conversation which you unwittingly forward to another person, there is no crime, because there was no intent to eavesdrop on or record a private conversation.
If the legislature wanted to criminalize possession, dissemination, or transcription of a private conversation, it could easily do so. After all, possession/sale of stolen property is only a crime because there is an explicit statute so defining it. Without that statute, prosecutors could not charge possessors and sellers of stolen property with theft on the creative theory that possession of stolen property is secondary theft. Unlike moral standards, when it comes to criminal law, you can’t just stretch words and concepts to redefine as criminal a course of conduct that you find offensive.
You are correct in stating that there may have been a crime if the recording of the conversation was taken from another without consent after it was recorded. That would be theft. But there is no evidence of that having occurred here. There may also have been a crime committed by the person who recorded the private conversation if he did so with intent. But he didn’t; so there wasn’t.
There is a question of ethics here: Christian ethics. It does not seem that this was considered when actions were taken.
As to legality of disseminating recordings: the huge Murdoch empire is now shaking because of such activity, so it cannot be minimized. It is criminal to record another’s conversation and disseminate it without prior approval.
But of course Elaine! If someone doesn’t behave the way you think they should, they not only don’t have Christian ethics, but they didn’t even consider Christian ethics. And you think you’re not a traditional legalistic Adventist… Welcome to the educatetruth club.
I guess my question would be this: What is the proper procedure for telling someone that they have a choice between resigning and availing themselves of whatever due process they are entitled to? Didn’t these guys waive “open and proper procedure”? Why would grown, highly educated, intelligent men yield to feckless, insecure cowards? Common sense would suggest that, at the time, they felt they had more to lose by going through process than by resigning. Why should they be treated like children – putty in the hands of skillful, evil manipulators? Give them a little respect. They weighed the options as adults do, and all four decided that resigning was the best choice under the circumstances as they saw them. Now they want a do-over.
I don’t begrudge them legal relief if the La Sierra employment policy for administrators is so ridiculous as to provide a basis for such relief. The law is the law. But I would never want to be an administrator or a Board member in any company where executives did not serve in an at-will capacity, at the pleasure of the Board.
Au contraire, Doctorf! I assume no such thing. I don’t know enough to have an opinion as to whether there may have been questionable ethical practices. I would be reluctant to unquestioningly accept the uncorrborated statements of any party to the confrontations and resignations. I have to admit that I don’t always comply with established rules of evidence in court. Am I therefore unethical or unChristian?
Where did I say that I would dismiss underlings if they impugned my authority and leadership? That’s risible! Who hasn’t impugned the authority and leadership of their boss from time to time? What I said was that top level executives should serve at the pleasure of the Board in an organization, and if someone on my MANAGEMENT TEAM was freely expressing the viewpoint that I, as the leader of the team, was a feckless buffoon, I wouldn’t want them on my team. Believe me, having supervised an office of 25 lawyers when I was Chief Deputy District Attorney, I wholeheartedly agree with you that managers need folks around them who are free to offer open, candid, and blunt criticism. And good leaders also need to realize that being trash-talked by underlings who are not on the management team goes with the territory.
I very much appreciate and understand your personal support for the LSU4. They need and deserve that support. I know quite well, and have deep respect, for one of them as well. Perhaps my occupation as lawyer makes it too easy for me to be detached and analytical. I am sorry if my call for a more temperate response is perceived as criticism of or an attack on the LSU4. That was certainly not my intent. My concern here is that support for the LSU4 should not necessarily translate into an attack on the Christianity and morals of administration, who were put into a very difficult situation.
So why the heck did they resign? Good to hear from someone with inside info.
Nate Schlit, I have read the article above and am puzzled, in light of the “Guidelines for Productive and Courteous Comments,” by your opening sentence: “As the knight writers of Adventist progressivism stampede into the legal fog they have created…” I wonder, Mr. Schlit, how do your comments qualify as Courteous and Productive? You pronounce those who disagree with you as “self-righteous legalists;” you repeatedly denigrate their opinions as “arrant nonsense” and “fatuous diversion,” and refer to them as being a “progressive lynch mob” “with too much time on their hands.” You accuse another responder of “making up your moral standards as you go along,” and to another you sarcastically declare that “if you had an ounce of introspection” he would agree with you opinion. I have read many articles/blogs/comments on AT and Spectrum. Your sarcastic arrogance and denigration of others–while loftily attributing “common sense” to your own opinions–are an egregious violation of all standards of common decency and respect in public discourse. Perhaps you think that bald-faced disrespect passes for acceptable discourse, although as an expert witness myself I have seen judges severely sanction attorneys who similarly abused witnesses in the courtroom. You, sir, are abusing your “bully pulpit,” and you own an apology to all those you have defamed.
Your courtroom analogy, Patti, is infelicitous (notice I didn’t say “arrant nonsense”). During the evidentiary portion of a trial, argument is not permitted. Attorneys cannot state their opinions or comment on the evidence, even if they do so with utmost respect and decorum. But even relatively uninformed laypersons know that there is a phase of trial when colorful adjectives, sarcasm, disparaging remarks, and even personal attacks are fair game. The format for AToday blogs, in case you hadn’t noticed, tends to be argument and opinion- not examination of witnesses who have sworn under penalty of perjury to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Do you see the difference?
I hope that, as an expert witness, you read the records submitted to you more carefully than you read blogs and comments. If not, I would have a field day cross-examining you on the witness stand. It was not I, but a commenter, who declared that, if I had an ounce of introspection, I would agree with him. I was not the least bit offended, and cannot see how a reasonable person could possibly read such a comment as being over the line. How about calling Church and University officials who asked for the resignations “feckless buffoons”? How about “feckless, insecure cowards”? How about “no consideration of Christian ethics”? Does it bother you that they are being made out to be immoral criminals?
All arguments are not created equal. Nor are all arguments worthy of respect. Colorful adjectives, sarcasm, metaphors, and turns of phrases give arguments force and often humor. I accept your criticism as a caution, but some of your criticisms are just silly: “Arrant nonsense” is disrespectful? – Give me a break! I have not singled out any particular individual for a personal attack. I have used strong adjectives and word pictures to disparage a class of advocates who have been promoting the notion that those who requested the resignations are unequivocally immoral and very possibly criminals.
Despite my defensiveness, Patti, I do hear your concern, though I think you are perhaps being a tad over-sensitive. I shall try to balance my appetite for robust exchange of ideas with sensitivity for those who prefer to follow what seem to me somewhat bland, Marquess of Queensberry rules.
I appreciate Patti’s post! It echoes my impression of this blog, in which it seems cleverness trumps knowledge.
As to your “defensiveness,” Nate, an EGW quotation might be useful even for a lawyer. “The very best example to give to others is to be right ourselves, and then leave ourselves, our reputation, with God and not show too great anxiety to right every wrong impression and present our case in a favorable light.”
Of the 31 posts currently on this blog, 11 are yours.
Thanks for the clarification, Doctorf. I’m still mystified as to why they resigned. I just don’t understand why someone would resign if they were falsely accused of drinking with snippets of evidence used to create a misleading impression. I’d be very indignant and angry if someone requested my resignation under those circumstances. What were they thinking?
It’s good to know the policy. But it is not clear to to me, as you articulate it, that this policy cannot be waived, or is not waived by resignation. Furthermore, does it matter that the “grievance” was against the administrators in only their administrative capacities – not their faculty capacities? As one who usually represents institutional interests, it is my gut feeling that, even had the administrators not resigned, the policy you cite would probably not have applied to them as long as there was no grievance against them qua faculty members.
Ms. Grant has posted: “Your [Nate’s] sarcastic arrogance and denigration of others–while loftily attributing “common sense” to your own opinions–are an egregious violation of all standards of common decency and respect in public discourse. Perhaps you think that bald-faced disrespect passes for acceptable discourse, although as an expert witness myself I have seen judges severely sanction attorneys who similarly abused witnesses in the courtroom. You, sir, are abusing your “bully pulpit,” and you own an apology to all those you have defamed.”
Since I have also been accused of “sarcastic arrogance and denigration of others,” this is not a defense of Nate (he is very capable of doing that himself) except to say that it seems to me that we sometimes eed to look beyond the written rhetorical style of some writers and ask if the ideas they present rational and need to be evaluated. I certainly attempt to look beyond the rhetorical style of my good friend Cliff Goldstein and evaluate his ideas (which I find, in most cases, to border on the absurd). Likewise, let us look beyond the rhetorical style of Nate and evaluate his ideas (which I find, in many cases, to have some major problems, but in many other cases, to be logical and cogent). But what is intellectual exchange without a little “over-the-top” passion? He who is without sin cast the first . . . .
My comments were made specifically in light of the “Guidelines for Productive and Courteous Comments” presumably posted by AT staff. It is hypocritical to set such criteria and then disregard them when writers blatantly ignore them. I have no problem with respectful dialogue and the evaluation of ideas (my undergraduate degree is in Literature and Writing). The question stands.