There is a controversy brewing at Tulane Law School where I began my academic career. The law school was the scene of a confrontation between controversial conservative filmmaker and activist James O’Keefe and former U.S. Attorney James Letten whose office handled the prosecution of O’Keefe for his entry in the office of Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu under false pretenses. Letten is now an Assistant Dean at the law school. Letten never explained why he recused himself from the case but O’Keefe suggests that he was responsible for leaking confidential information to the media. In the video below posted and edited by O’Keefe, Letten confronted O’Keefe and accuses him of “terrorizing” his wife and violating state and federal law by appearing at the law school. Letten calls O’Keefe and his crew a bunch of “hobbits” and berates the filmmaker. While I am no fan of O’Keefe, I am afraid that I do not see the basis for the alleged crimes by O’Keefe or the basis for his being held by law enforcement outside of the law school. The school has banned O’Keefe from the campus after the confrontation with Letten.
Letten confronts the man he calls a “nasty little cowardly spud” outside of the law school. He says that O’Keefe has committed federal and state crimes and was particularly upset with the appearance of O’Keefe at his home in an attempt to give Letten his book. I do not blame him. However, Letten says that such an attempt constitutes some form of crime of “harassing a former U.S. Attorney.” Absent some restraining order or threat, I fail to see how such a visit would constitute a federal crime. Regardless of the provocation however Letten response is not befitting an academic. While filming can be limited on private property, the claim of state and federal violations was never explained by Tulane in its public statement. The University is only claiming that O’Keefe committed “the provocation of these unannounced and uninvited visits.” There has been no mention of criminal conduct by the University in any of its subsequent statements on either the state or federal level.
My greater concern is the holding of O’Keefe and the conduct of Letten. We have previously discussed such tirades from faculty (here and here) Letten unleashes a tirade of abuse on the crew and throw a book handed to him back at Letten. (O’Keefe calls this assault, but once again I fail to that that crime any more than Letten. It is a technical offensive touching but it is pretty trivial to constitute a crime). Letten is unwilling to discuss any issue and instead tells the crew “Listen to me,. Listen to me, hobbits, okay? Listen to me. Listen to me. Pay attention to me. Listen to me. You went to my house. You terrorized my wife. You are violating federal law. You are violating state law. You’re trespassing. You’re a nasty little cowardly spud. All of you. You’re hobbits. You are less than I could ever tell you. You are scum.”
The part of the video that I find interesting is where O’Keefe begins to leave and he is stopped by security and what appears to be a New Orleans police officer. Letten and the officer say that O’Keefe is trespassing. However, that does not appear to be the case. The public is allowed to use public sidewalks and access on such campuses. I certainly fail to see the basis for the officer telling O’Keefe that he is in custody. He is entitled to express his opinion just as Letten is entitled to express his opinion to O’Keefe that “You spend your life as a snail. You do weird little political things, you’re a horses a–. Stay away from my family, stay away from me, stay away from this institution. If you want to be a political, you know, extremist nut job, that’s fine, don’t break the law.”
I certainly understand Letten’s frustration and anger, particularly when someone goes to your home. However, he is now part of an academic not a prosecutorial enterprise. Universities are traditionally zones of protected speech and the actions taken against O’Keefe in preventing him to leave, if only briefly. The officer says that he is indeed in custody and that the University is private property. The university can exclude people from its facilities, but it is not clear what precisely was the grounds for the detaining of O’Keefe.
The University is standing with Letten in the following statement: “This exchange, arising from an issue related to his previous position as U.S. attorney, followed visits to Jim Letten’s home and campus office by James O’Keefe and his film crew that were intimidating and harassing to both his wife and staff. Despite the provocation of these unannounced and uninvited visits, Mr. Letten regrets losing his temper in addressing the impropriety of Mr. O’Keefe’s conduct.”
The film of the home visit does not appear to have any threats. It is the visit itself that appears to be the basis for the intimidating conduct. However, people are allowed to go to homes absent threats or a court order. There is no mention of a specific threat or threatening act other than the appearance at the home or the campus.
Here is the video:
Nick,
Does this make a difference to you?
Where can I exercise my speech rights?
“On any private property where the owner gives permission (the owner always decides) and in any area open to the public, such as streets, sidewalks, town squares or parks. If you plan to or actually block passage on a street or sidewalk, you must apply for a permit.”
Did the owner give permission for O’Keefee and his crew to be present? When they were asked to leave they should have scooted…
Anon wrote: “When they were asked to leave they should have scooted…”
It looked like they tried to leave, but the police said no, it’s not going to be that easy.
Most people don’t do confrontation well. There are some rules:
1. Don’t lose your cool.
2. Don’t be a smart alec
3. Don’t use big words or bad language.
4. End it as soon as possible.
5. Don’t try to make philosophical points.
6. When in doubt just leave.
If you have something to say, use the interrogative form: “Why are you stopping to confront me here today? Can’t we handle this by telephone or by a scheduled appointment instead of jumping me on the street? What can I possibly do to satisfy your issues off camera where we can talk person to person? Why do you feel it necessary to bring my wife/kids/family into our situation?” These are hard to answer even for folks like Okeefe. And if you get him answering questions you’ve won the confrontation.
By the way, using these techniques makes you the reasonable one and gets the viewer on your side even if you are blind-sided. Again, a win for you in the confrontation.
There are times when aggressive behavior is acceptable. This isn’t one of those times. Gaze at Mr. Letten to see how not to do confrontation.
Jonathan, it is clear you did not do any investigative work here. You simply watched the video, which I should mention was edited and produced by O’Keefe’s people, and then wrote your assumptions. Here are some key phrases from your own writing that substantiate this:
“I am afraid that I do not see the basis for…”
” I fail to see how such a visit would constitute…”
“The part of the video that I find interesting…”
“…but it is not clear what precisely was the grounds for the detaining of O’Keefe…”
“The film of the home visit does not appear to have any threats…”
Journalism best practices would dictate that before you write about this you would try your best to interview both O’Keefe and Letten, and maybe Letten’s wife. You would contact the Tulane Police Department to find out why O’Keefe was detained, rather than assuming you already know that he should not have been detained. You would somehow find out if the home visit you saw on the video was the entire home visit. Were there any interactions with Letten’s wife before or after what you saw on the video? If so, did O’Keefe’s behavior rise to the standards of the alleged harassment?
Jonathan, if you’re going to blog, you should keep in mind that some people who read your blog will view you as a journalist, and since that is the case, you should at least try to “do” some journalism before posting something like this. I’m not here to defend O’Keefe or Letten, but I am here to say that this piece that you wrote is lazy commentary.
Although a private university, it is open to the public. There are no requirements that a person be a student or employee to be on a private university campus. I wandered through the greens and buildings of Yale as a youngster growing up nearby. I went to a Catholic college and folks roamed freely. If O’Keefe were told to leave by a person w/ the authority to say that, and he did not, then he would be trespassing. However, whether public or private, college campuses are expected to be the bastion of openness. Hell, last Spring I roamed the campus of Brigham Young, a Catholic, a sinner, and someone who also just recently LMAO @ the Book of Mormons play.
Let’s be honest. Many folks here don’t like O’Keefe or what he stands for. But, there’s been little discussion of his larger point. That being folks like Diane “Big Nanny” Feinstein are trying to regulate journalism and the First Amendment by arbitrarily deciding who is a journalist and who is not! I think most, if not all of us, agree w/ O’Keefe on this.
Ok David, I agreed with you until you made your last statement…. It’s not a public university…. You wanna try the same logic with your alma matter which I presume is Regents or its ilk…. If it was a state university I’m in your corner… But you also have to take in to account the different types of folk… Invitees, Guests and Trespassers….
Excellent point, Anon. I was thinking it was a public university. My mistake. Being private complicates the matter.
I’m not sure what “Regents” is. My alma matters include public universities: degrees from University of Southern Mississippi and University of South Florida.
The cop did the proper thing and arrested okeefe for trespassing. He had been informed before hand that he was not to be on campus, was asked to leave, did not, and so was arrested. The law refers to ordinary passerby and visitors to campus, not persons who are engaged in harassing specific people. That is where I have to agree with the cop.
Arthur Randolph Erb wrote: “The law refers to ordinary passerby and visitors to campus, not persons who are engaged in harassing specific people. That is where I have to agree with the cop.”
No, the law does not refer to ordinary passerby and visitors. If you want to go on campus with a large sign and start screaming to save the whales, you are entitled to do that as long as you do not interfere with classes or the normal operation of the campus. O’Keefe attempting to speak with someone or deliver a free book to him is not harassment. It seems like nobody understands free speech anymore.
And what did the cops charge him with? You don’t accuse someone of trespassing and then not let them leave. The cop said, “It’s not going to be that easy…” What? You don’t want somebody on your property, so when they say they are leaving, you say, “no, it is not going to be that easy?” How much you want to bet no charges were ever filed against O’Keefe for trespassing? The only harassment going on was from the cops and Letten. They harassed O’Keefe who was acting within his Constitutionally protected rights.
Totally on O’Keefe’s side on this one. The campus police were violating O’Keefe’s civil rights by detaining him when he said he was leaving. The disrespectful language by Letten was totally uncalled for, as well as trying to throw in a racial slur in respect to O’Keefe’s Irish heritage. These guys (Letten & Campus Police) are whiney and unprofessional and abusing the power of their authority. Nothing but exercising free speech rights by O’Keefe.
It would appear as if former U.S. Attorney James Letten has had his feelings hurt and apparently that is sufficient grounds for Mr. Letten to attempt to use the coercive power of the state/University of Tulane to make himself feel better at Mr. O’keefe’s expense.
It’s funny to me that the likely reason that anyone is talking about this video is that the Tulane guy called him a “hobbit.” That was slightly weird and funny. If he had just stuck with calling him an a@@hole, then this would not have gone viral. Just an observation about the oddity of what captures attention and what does not.
You know if 60 minutes showed up at your door… You’re going to have a bad day…. If O’Keefe shows up…. Ask the mofo to leave and be done with it…. If he persists, get a restraining order…. Or as raff threaded on Sunday…. File a civil lien against him… He is a professor now…. He does not enjoy the immunity and privacy and/orforce of the federal Marshall’s to do his bidding for him…. It’s time for him to either find a new home, new job, new lie of work and change his authoritarian complex…..
Apparently O’Keefe earlier had tried to contact Letten’s wife which would seem to be way beyond what would be permissible for a former defendant or complainant?
O’Keefe is a jerk.
But why did he recuse himself and did that have something to do with the tirade that was probably cinematic gold to O’Keefe
pdm, I was a PI. So, I know going undercover is often the only way to get the truth. That said, you’re correct, Moore does not himself go undercover, he’s to well known and well..distinctive. Mostly, I was talking about this type of interview of Letten. This is Moore’s bread and butter…as it were.
Not Letten’s nor Tulane’s finest hour. However, let it go on the record that this is Pimp O”Keefe and Moore NEVER dressed as a pimp.or presented himself as anybody other than Michael Moore. To most people, that would be a very notable difference.
Steve, I don’t like or dislike O’Keefe. He uses the same tactics as Michael Moore. I knew nothing of Letten, other than this videotape. He was the a-hole here.
I wonder what qualifies Letten to be dean of a law school?
I would think he would know (being a lawyer) that he could get a restraining order against O’Keefe. It must be pretty easy for prosecutors to get such orders against person’s they have indicted who show up at their homes. Maybe he’s not that good of a lawyer.
And maligning the word ‘hobbit’ is well out of order.
Previous commentators (Kraaken & Gene H.) appear to be letting their dislike of O’Keefe interfere with their support of the law.
Guys, the law applies equally to everyone – both constraining and protecting.
It’s a terrible thing to say about Hobbits, but he was much more complimentary of O’Keefe than I’d have been.
I wonder if this wasn’t one of O’Keefe’s set-up pieces? Hobbits? Really?