Emory University law professor and Orthodox rabbi Michael Broyde is being accused of assuming a false identity and joining a rabbinic group under false pretenses. Broyde allegedly assumed the identify of a Rabbi Hershel Goldwasser, who claimed to live in Israel, and gained access for 20 years to the International Rabbinic Fellowship, an association of liberal Orthodox rabbis. Broyde is accused of then lying when confronted about the deception and denying that he was in fact Goldwasser who penned a variety of letters and directed people to Broyde’s own scholarship.
In addition to being a law professor and Senior Fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion, Broyde is a member of the Rabbinical Council of America and a judge Beth Din of America, the largest Jewish law court in America.
Broyde was confronted by a reporter for the Jewish Channel and denied that he was the same person. He was asked why his personal Internet Protocol addresses matched those of correspondence from Goldwasser, Broyde simply said that he didn’t know what IP addresses were. That is now obvious. When evidence was presented linking him to the deception, he later owned up to being Goldwasser.
The question is how Emory should handle such deception and denials from a law professor and ethicist. While this could be viewed as something occurring in his private life, Broyde reportedly used the false identity to push his own scholarship. However, there remains the question whether such conduct should lead to his loss of tenure as opposed to his reparation from the Jewish court.
What do you think?
Source:
Tony C. 1, April 18, 2013 at 4:36 pm
Dredd: Should Broyde or Broyde’s sockpuppet “Rabbi Hershel Goldwasser” receive any worse than Walt Whitman, Anthory Burgess, or Benjamin Franklin, all of whom I dare say are venerated in your ethical literary concepts?
Your dare is lost, I venerate no person at all. Not one. I think it is despicable of anybody to pretend to be somebody else while “reviewing” their own work, it is lying.
You are asking the wrong question, entirely. To rephrase your question, you essentially ask that if Franklin got away with a crime against humanity, shouldn’t Broyde be entitled to get away with the same crime?
Just because some people get away with fraud, theft or murder does not excuse other people for committing fraud, theft or murder. If Franklin reviewed his own work while pretending to be somebody else, then he committed a fraud.
As for veneration, I am not awed by anybody; I am only awed by work that people have done. Those are separate things in my mind; a work (of art, of science, of imagination) is an entity unto itself. Newton was a total jerk, so was Euler, Einstein was an adulterer. Awesome work has been done by people I wouldn’t want in my house, and by people I think I would have really liked.
You are asking the wrong question, entirely. To rephrase your question, you essentially ask that if Franklin got away with a crime against humanity, shouldn’t Broyde be entitled to get away with the same crime?
Just because some people get away with fraud, theft or murder does not excuse other people for committing fraud, theft or murder. If Franklin reviewed his own work while pretending to be somebody else, then he committed a fraud.
As for veneration, I am not awed by anybody; I am only awed by work that people have done. Those are separate things in my mind; a work (of art, of science, of imagination) is an entity unto itself. Newton was a total jerk, so was Euler, Einstein was an adulterer. Awesome work has been done by people I wouldn’t want in my house, and by people I think I would have really liked.
=================================================
I bet your mother was all “Aww look at him …” when she laid eyes on you.
Aww hell, be awed by somebody dood. Venerate somebody dood!
Anyway.
Should works be banned because of the misconduct you speak of … burned … shredded … or what?
“Where there is no serious punishment there is no serious law.” – Dredd
Tony C. 1, April 18, 2013 at 4:20 pm
Dredd: There is an old article by Gene in which this was discussed at length, by me, with others.
…
As an atheist that believes in evolution …
========================================
Yes, I remember, Sockpuppets evolved from Midichlorians.
I also remember about all that rebate is that “bitc*ing” also evolved here, like Elastic Lad, morphing into “Don’t go to Dredd’s links because he is a Rabbi Rouser.”
I guess I should have paid more attention, but Idealist707 kept me distracted.
Tony: One can “promote” oneself, or one can “promote” an idea or a cause. Lawrence Sterne is known to have written a laudatory letter about his novel Tristram Shandy. He had a woman he knew sign it. He literally used the “name of another” to promote himself. It was even more convincing that way than using a pseudonym. This kind of shenanigan has been going on for centuries, but we are suddenly making a major ethical issue out of it. And we are using this manufactured issue to destroy people’s lives.
Incidentally, the “promotion” theme runs through the Raphael Golb trial transcripts. He did it not to expose plagiarism, but to “promote” his father. He did it not to expose misconduct, but to get a thousand dollars. And so on and so forth. You can use the same technique to take anything and make a crime of it.
Quixote: The problem isn’t pseudonyms; the problem is using them to promote one’s self by pretending to be a separate objective voice. That is the unethical component, not JUST the idea of using a pseudonym.
Dredd: Should Broyde or Broyde’s sockpuppet “Rabbi Hershel Goldwasser” receive any worse than Walt Whitman, Anthory Burgess, or Benjamin Franklin, all of whom I dare say are venerated in your ethical literary concepts?
Your dare is lost, I venerate no person at all. Not one. I think it is despicable of anybody to pretend to be somebody else while “reviewing” their own work, it is lying.
You are asking the wrong question, entirely. To rephrase your question, you essentially ask that if Franklin got away with a crime against humanity, shouldn’t Broyde be entitled to get away with the same crime?
Just because some people get away with fraud, theft or murder does not excuse other people for committing fraud, theft or murder. If Franklin reviewed his own work while pretending to be somebody else, then he committed a fraud.
As for veneration, I am not awed by anybody; I am only awed by work that people have done. Those are separate things in my mind; a work (of art, of science, of imagination) is an entity unto itself. Newton was a total jerk, so was Euler, Einstein was an adulterer. Awesome work has been done by people I wouldn’t want in my house, and by people I think I would have really liked.
Precisely this form of “deceit” has been engaged in by John Locke, Voltaire, Lawrence Sterne, Benjamin Franklin, Fernando Pessoa, and hundreds of other public intellectuals, including many a Jewish rabbinical figure, who have craftily concealed their identities and used pseudonyms to engage in argumentation with others.
The books of intellectual history are in fact filled with examples of precisely this kind of conduct. The fashion of the “Chinese Garden” came to an end in England when a critic of the style published an article purportedly written by a visitor from China. I could go through one case after another. Should we rewrite history, and trash all of our cultural heroes who have used pseudonyms to debate others, to avoid retaliation, and even to accuse others of misconduct?
Oh, but now that we have the Internet, we must suddenly acknowledge that such actions are inappropriate and, even worse, actually damaging to the career of an austere orthodox rabbi of whom we demand that he be as priggish as we are.
In fact, for some REAL insight on how far we have strayed from the path of reason in the matter of Internet pseudonyms and deadpan, accusatory satire that’s not “just for fun,” see the Raphael Golb Trial website:
http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/
Read the transcripts. See how a million taxpayer dollars were employed to “get” the sinister Dead Sea Scrolls provocateur. See how his dangerous sock-puppets (“he knows how to use words to stir up controversy”) were exposed by Manhattan prosecutors, acting at the behest of a small group of academics who were apparently unhappy about certain allegations being exposed on the Internet.
How titillating! And it looks like the case is going up to the New York Court of Appeals in Albany for review. It will be interesting to see how they deal with this one.
Incidentally, an odd detail emerges from the transcripts: the prosecution was allowed to argue that Golb used his “sock-puppets” to make “false accusations,” but Golb was blocked from introducing any evidence that his accusations were true, because “neither good faith nor truth is a defense to the crimes charged.”
Great stuff! Will prosecutors around the country learn to employ this technique to get people like Broyde too, and every other member of an academic family out there using sock-puppets to accuse others of misbehavior?
Furthermore, there is a Herschel Goldwasser who lives in New York, so maybe we should have Broyde arrested and charged with “identity theft”? Under the terms of the law used against Raphael Golb, Broyde also committed a crime, because he used the name of another to influence a debate, thereby obtaining a “benefit.”
But seriously, have we all lost our minds? To “investigate,” arrest, prosecute, and imprison people who engage in sock-puppetry and satire on the Internet? This is poison for freedom, and it’s no laughing matter.
know se hobloh es-span-yhole in this “one”
and some somes I reed backwords THE BIBLE will be translated into the language that it was oh-ridge-in-ally intended.
but I don’t know how it is spelled in laat-in
knowahs ark…
…ar-key-all-justs say mt air-ah-rat.
…an-are-key will take over the whirled…
…there were floods all over the whirled and sod-em, and go more-AH.
some times ! use try-ball sense, there were floods all over, in different tongues ect. …
there are reasons to look at the past.
JESUS body was taken up into the heavens!
..where did HIS body go?
…Jesus said, knot to worship HIM, but to worship THE FATHER!
“know JESUS…,
NO HEAVEN!
sayth mack-farland said that GOD THE FATHER could knot hold HIS leekqour and made money off from MY name…
I can even prophesee from fish. I even made a hallowbutt for the church to carp about with know soul inTENdid.
a is e, A is I, e is IyI, I is oh, and owe is ewe and cometimes y is ess, ass is sea ect. and then there is ISEZ too… a Goddess
…then there is the w”s, nv m”s.
…people would bee taught to reed the bible as GOD intended them to because they say that in the times that ewe would be better off reading a pornagraphic book. JOHN:ONE in the end a colon has an ass connected too-it:
…I will catch a lunatic every damn time is rael. were is the promised land!
…peephole will come to know: JESUS CHRIST! at a young age and be bourne into sin…
…the knew poohp must teach the true baptism…
… more men will wallow in their sins.
JOHN: says you will see angels going up and down when ooops-see-do-dew-sea-dew on a water craft again.
would any body decode the bible when it is also written pornagraphic?
…you need to raise your children prop-purrr-ly always getting ready for-play…
…it was also translated into greek, IF you plan on being with some body, they should tell them what they want?…
Dredd: There is an old article by Gene in which this was discussed at length, by me, with others.
Ultimately, like mathematics or logic itself, one must come to grips with the idea of no pre-existing rules to follow. Some people come to grips with that via supernaturalism, claiming the “laws” they believe in have existed for eternity and are handed to us by an eternal being that cannot be questioned.
As an atheist that believes in evolution, I reject that notion. Abstract rules are made by intelligent beings, and intelligence (in my view) had a definite beginning, although I do not know precisely when I do believe there was a singular mutation, perhaps the final mutation in a long chain of them, that first gave an animal the biological ability to formulate an abstract “rule.”
I think life began for the first time somewhere in the universe, it did not exist forever and therefore life did not precede life. Likewise, I think abstract rules began for the first time somewhere, I do not think abstract rules existed forever, and I do not think rules preceded rules. Therefore, there must be a method we can use to devise rules that does not follow any rules itself.
To discover that method, we must consult psychology, and evolutionary psychology. The “first” rule, in my mind, is the self-evident rule, built into our brains, of understanding abstract “equivalence.” Another way of putting this is that we know, without consulting any particular rule or system, when some things are fair, or equitable.
That doesn’t apply to everything, obviously, but when we build systems of logic and inference, we cannot do that without simplifying situations down to those things we find self-evidently fair, or equitable, or balanced (or self-evidently unfair, inequitable, and unbalanced.)
When we talk about “ethical” or “unethical” we are talking about fair and unfair; when we talk about criminality it is the same. Crimes are typically one person acting unfairly toward another; by stealing, killing, defrauding, lying under oath, etc. “Justice” is the idea that it is “fair” to punish people for being “unfair” in order to restore “balance.”
Ethics can be formalized and should be, for complicated situations that are not instantly analyzed, but what is or is not ethical is not encoded in that formalization, ultimately that formalization rests upon equivalences that get to a foundation of what we inherently agree is self-evidently right and wrong.
I think Broyde’s self-promotion while pretending to be somebody besides himself is wrong, to me it is self-evidently deceptive. I don’t need rules to see that, just like I don’t think shop lifting is wrong because it is against the law, I think shop lifting is wrong, period.
Tony C. 1, April 18, 2013 at 3:17 pm
Dredd: Dredd referring to Dredd blogs is not deception; Gene linking to his own post (as Gene) is not being deceptive, me linking to a “Tony C” post while posting as “Tony C” is not being deceptive, either explicitly or implicitly.
Dredd using a different pseudonym on this blog, say “AMoron,” and writing “I’m AMoron and I love Dredd’s Blog, you should read it!” would be deceptive, and morally wrong.
If I wanted to point at research I did, I am not going to pretend it wasn’t me. Since I protect my anonymity here, I will never direct somebody to a paper or book I wrote as if I were somebody else. What I may do is, under my handle, note that I have done or have seen research and describe the results, then readers can judge for themselves whether that makes sense, or go try to find it themselves, or ignore it.
I have no problem with anonymity, which is simply refusing to reveal one’s identity. I do have a problem with deceptive impersonation, which is what I think Broyde was engaged in. If he REALLY wanted to refer people to his own scholarship; he could have signed up as himself, replied to another poster as himself, and said that he wanted to refer them to his own research on the topic under discussion. As “Goldwasser” or as “Broyde” he could refrain from all sock puppetry and refrain from any comment or reply on (or to) what were really his own posts. That, in my view, would have been ethical. He was trying to have his cake (anonymity) and eat it too (by citing his own academic authority as if it were independent evidence of his claims).
THAT is the distinction that makes a difference; what is “ethical” does not depend on what the existing rules or laws are. What is “ethical” is how we decide what the rules and laws should be.
=========================================
That seems reasonable up to:
I would say that “ethical” is arbitrary and capricious unless it is based on well defined and sensible rules short of law in the current context.
I say that because “deceit” is a tort while ethical violations do not, in my view constitute a tort in this context, i.e. in the sense of:
(Wikipedia, emphasis added). Should Broyde or Broyde’s sockpuppet “Rabbi Hershel Goldwasser” receive any worse than Walt Whitman, Anthory Burgess, or Benjamin Franklin, all of whom I dare say are venerated in your ethical literary concepts?
Dredd: Dredd referring to Dredd blogs is not deception; Gene linking to his own post (as Gene) is not being deceptive, me linking to a “Tony C” post while posting as “Tony C” is not being deceptive, either explicitly or implicitly.
Dredd using a different pseudonym on this blog, say “AMoron,” and writing “I’m AMoron and I love Dredd’s Blog, you should read it!” would be deceptive, and morally wrong.
If I wanted to point at research I did, I am not going to pretend it wasn’t me. Since I protect my anonymity here, I will never direct somebody to a paper or book I wrote as if I were somebody else. What I may do is, under my handle, note that I have done or have seen research and describe the results, then readers can judge for themselves whether that makes sense, or go try to find it themselves, or ignore it.
I have no problem with anonymity, which is simply refusing to reveal one’s identity. I do have a problem with deceptive impersonation, which is what I think Broyde was engaged in. If he REALLY wanted to refer people to his own scholarship; he could have signed up as himself, replied to another poster as himself, and said that he wanted to refer them to his own research on the topic under discussion. As “Goldwasser” or as “Broyde” he could refrain from all sock puppetry and refrain from any comment or reply on (or to) what were really his own posts. That, in my view, would have been ethical. He was trying to have his cake (anonymity) and eat it too (by citing his own academic authority as if it were independent evidence of his claims).
THAT is the distinction that makes a difference; what is “ethical” does not depend on what the existing rules or laws are. What is “ethical” is how we decide what the rules and laws should be.
Tony C. 1, April 18, 2013 at 11:03 am
Dredd: re the people alleging some form of hurt
I think it is fair to presume Broyde kept up his lie for twenty years because he found it beneficial to him and caused people to do things they would not have done if they knew it was just Broyde speaking about himself.
Would you hire a guy if you found out his “references” were all just him, using false identities to lavish praise upon himself?
===========================================
That is a tad bit of a loosey goosey accusation Tony C.
First of all, using a handle is not a lie, nor is using an alias.
That in spite of the fact that a handle or an alias can be used for bad — because it can also be used for good — or be used for neutral (neither good not bad).
That is why you must be specific in laying out what is unlawful or unethical in specifically what he did.
Instead you use hypothetical anecdotes, supposition, and/or assertions of fact not in the record.
Here is specifically what he did:
(How sorry is Rabbi Michael Broyde about being Rabbi Hershel Goldwasser?). What he did was to join a listserv using a handle “Rabbi Hershel Goldwasser.”
Most of us who comment here on JT’s blog, and thousands of other blogs, use handles (“contrived names”)..
I am not named “Dredd“, nor is “Anonymously Yours” named “Anonymously Yours”, in “real life”.
We use handles or aliases.
That is fair.
Is count one of your indictment against Broyde that he used the handle “Rabbi Hershel Goldwasser” on a listserv … when most folks use handles on a listserv too?
Is count two of your indictment against Broyde that he linked to or specifically cited his own scholarship (“Broyde says this about that”) while using the handle “Rabbi Hershel Goldwasser” to make the link?
Is count three of your indictment against Broyde that he should have not linked to his own stuff under the listserv handle?
Should, for example “Dredd”, only use the handle “Dredd” when linking to blogs or comments by “Dredd?
Please refer to rules of ethical internet principles in your reply, because just plain old bitc*ing is not a valid ethical foundation.
Like some folks here who bit*h because I sometimes link to my own posts on my own blog (which has no commercial ads or any other way to commercially benefit me, since in that sense I am not Dredd).
Just making up Internet rules because you don’t like what someone says is invalid as an ethical rule to be applied to all.
And that is my point … if it does not apply universally, but instead discriminates, then as an alleged ethical internet premise it requires more validity that an alleged ethical premise that applies to everyone.
For example, when Gene H or Mike S refer to and/or link to their own posts, it is in general a reference and link so they don’t have to paste the whole post over and over again ad nauseum (thankfully).
Or when you link to previous comments you have made, so you don’t have to post them over and over ad nauseum, what is so unethical about that even if it gets some knickers in a knot?
If the listserv or the blog has a rule that you must use your legal and real personal name — no handles — that is one thing — but that is not asserted in JT’s post.
Nor is it required on this blog.
Those are distinctions with a difference IMO.
A crime of moral turpitude…he has broken every single “social contract” that defines his academic and religious titles. He should be stripped of both.
So….
Dredd: re the people alleging some form of hurt
I think it is fair to presume Broyde kept up his lie for twenty years because he found it beneficial to him and caused people to do things they would not have done if they knew it was just Broyde speaking about himself.
Would you hire a guy if you found out his “references” were all just him, using false identities to lavish praise upon himself?
There is a difference between “anonymity” and impersonation. Broyde could not have written “anonymous” letters recommending himself, for example. I post under a pseudonym here, but nobody is going to pay any attention to a recommendation letter signed “Tony C,” or Donald Duck, or “P Smith” or “Dredd.”
Broyde was NOT engaging in anonymous speech, he was using a false identity he purposely intended people to believe was a real person, and apparently one that highly recommended Broyde. Do you think there is a difference between a person highly recommending themselves, versus being highly recommended by somebody else, particularly somebody in a position of authority and trust, a judge and religious leader? The former is just braggadocio, the latter is considered a far more objective endorsement.
Sock puppets on the Internet are just an annoyance because we know how easy it is, and pseudonyms do not come with real world credentials and positions.
When I post anonymously here, it is because I believe debate and logic should stand on its own, win or lose. Shakespeare’s anonymity (if any) was similarly honorable; his plays did not become famous because of his social position (if any).
How can seemingly intelligent people be so stupid? I think he should remove ethicist from his titles and replace it with “Liar”.
Even money says Broyde will claim “anti-semitism” at some point.
As for anonymity and pseudonyms (re: Dredd’s comment), there’s nothing wrong with anonymity or not using one’s real name. Some people need anonymity (e.g. online support groups, whistleblowers reporting crimes) and should not be denied it.
The only time anonymity is a problem is when someone uses it for illegal or unethical purposes such as harassment, stalking, threats, or in Broyde’s case, dishonestly furthering his own career. To no surprise, many of those likely to seek anonymity are those most likely to engage in criminal behaviour. Remember the pi…uh, swin…uh, “cops” at UC Davis and Oakland covering their badge numbers and names and then violently assaulting people?
Sock puppets are a true annoyance, idiots promoting themselves using phony to post “agreements” with their own words. Are people so stupid that they think they won’t get caught? Sock puppetry needs to be put on legal par with plagiarism – those who do it, like Broyde, should be stripped of their credentials and position.
“Throughout the history of literature, since the creation of bound texts in the forms of books and codices, various works have been published and written anonymously, often due to their political or controversial nature, or merely for the purposes of the privacy of their authors, among other reasons. This article provides a list of literary works published anonymously, either attributed to “Anonymous”, or with no specific author’s name given.” – Wikipedia “List of Anonymously published Works”
Who is “Shakespeare” for example?
Many people still do not know that “George Orwell” (“1984”) is a fictitious name, nor that he had good reason to use an alias (Bully Worship: The Universal Religion).
On the Internet we know it is common to use “handles” … fictitious names.
The test is the good or bad, on balance, which works by anonymous folks present.
No one will like everything an anonymous writer produces, but anonymous works have a valid literary and journalistic nature and purpose.
That would be the test to apply to Broyde a.k.a. “Goldwasser” in my opinion: are the people alleging some form of hurt because of his attempted secrecy deserving of a legal or an ethical remedy?
Frankly: I disagree; ax him. Statistically speaking, the average new hire professor would be better than this guy, so hire new, and the department will likely be better for it, and let him go practice his unethical conduct elsewhere. THAT would teach him a lesson, teach others a lesson, and provide an opportunity for a decent human being to take his place.
OY! This is stupid in so many ways. Sockpuppets are a regular feature of the Internet, although I admit I have never seen it taken to this length. I don’t see this as a capital offense, he needs to be censured and there should be some repercussions but it should be well short of the ‘death penalty’. He shouldn’t be allowed to associate ‘ethicist’ with his name any more thats for sure. Probably have the title Rabbi striped too. Some sort of demotion/probation/suspension of his teaching. But if he can show that he has learned a lesson & do better it seems a waste to ax him over this