There is a free speech controversy swirling around an ethics complaint in Illinois brought by University of Denver law professor Nancy Leong. Leong runs a blog site called Feminist Law Professors and recently discovered the identity of an anonymous commenter who has, according to Leong, left racist and sexist comments. She says that he is a a public defender in his late 40s and she wants him punished for his comments. We have discussed the free speech rights of public employees in an earlier column and blog postings, including the right to speak on blogs and Internet sites. The actions of Leong are troubling for those of us who believe strongly in free speech values, including the right to anonymity.
The poster used “dybbuk” in posts that referenced Leong. In one post, he talks about a 28-year-old law grad and wrote “I think she has the right age, gender, credentials, and eager-to-please attitude for an ‘odd job’ I have in mind . . . Basically it involves the girl dressing up as a law professor, bending over, and trying to ask me questions about International Shoe while I spank her with a wet slipper.” He also criticized Leong, including her presentation in Hawaii on “racial capitalism,” stating “Now that is what I call a gravy train or, shall I say, a luau train. Law professors enjoying a free Hawaii vacation at some seaside hotel. All they have to do is attend some ‘annual meeting’ of some ‘society’ where they pretend to listen to Leong yap about ‘pragmatic approach[es] of reactive commodification,’ while undressing her with their eyes.”
Leong found dozens of references about her on five different websites as part of her investigation, including disparaging her scholarship and describing her as “a comely young narcissist” and a “law professor hottie.” She also said that other professors that he criticized on these various sites were overwhelmingly directed at women and professors of color. She considers anonymous postings with sexist elements to be unethical. She writes in the complaint that “There are over 6,000 tenured and tenure-track law professors in the United States have less practice experience than I do. Most of them have weaker publishing records than I do. Most of them have weaker teaching evaluations than I do. Almost all of them have been members of the legal academy longer than I have. Almost all of them have more power and prominence than I do. In light of these facts, it is difficult to think of a reasonable explanation for [dybbuk’s] obsessive attention to an untenured professor.”
That does not sound like the basis of an ethics complaint. I am highly sympathetic to Leong because I have long been amazed how anonymity unleashes the both base and juvenile instincts in some people. Many posters are consumed by jealously and prejudice — venting these feelings in a way that would never be tolerated in many public or employment settings. They often seem personify their anger in their own lives or careers against those who take on public causes or positions. It is a sad statement of our species and something that has led many blogs to ban either anonymous postings or all comments from their sites.
I can certainly understand Leong’s desire to set matters straight, though I have had far worse comments directed my way as a newspaper columnist and a television commentator. I rarely if ever respond or even correct false statements on my background. As many know, this blog enforces a civility rule while working hard to avoid banning individuals in light of our free speech principles. We also recognize the right of anonymity. When you write for a newspaper or a blog, you willingly become a public figure — a role that comes with both good and bad speech direct at you by others. One of the few exchanges that I have had with a critic was not over the content of criticism but the tenor. Some of you may recall that a few year ago I had an interesting exchange with another legal blog where the host expressly rejected civility on her site or other sites. I continue to believe that people, especially lawyers, carry a responsibility to engage in respectful and civil dialogue. All of us will have relapses, but most of us were raised to show such respect in dealings with others, even those with whom we disagree. Clearly Leong is dealing with someone who long ago abandoned such restraints, but that does not mean that his speech should be the subject of discipline by a bar.
In my view, the criticism of Leong’s writings or experience falls squarely under protected speech. Ironically, she has an impressive publication and academic record that speaks for itself without the need for extrinsic disciplinary mechanisms. Moreover, as an anonymous filing, these are postings that do not reflect on this man’s employer. Underlying the complaint seems to be a view that sexist or racist statements made as an anonymous person would still constitute a violation. We have discussed in many blogs and columns and (here) how non-discrimination laws have increasingly collided with free speech principles.
In a blog posting, Leong speaks about investigating harassers. She says that she tracked down her critic to confront him:
To my regret, my harasser refused to speak to me. I called him at his office (once) and left a message with the person (not him) who picked up the phone simply leaving my name and number and asking him to call me. He didn’t call back. A few days later I emailed him (once), explaining that I had identified him and that I wished to discuss his Internet posting activities. The email was difficult to write. It triggered emotions relating to an experience confronting a person who abused me many years ago. I did my best to keep the email polite and professional and–to the extent I could–I tried to express some sympathy for circumstances in his life of which I might not be aware.
It clearly did not work and Leong proceeded to file a formal complaint. That is where I have to respectfully disagree with Professor Leong. The effort to punish this poster threatens free speech and creates a chilling message for those who wish to engage in discussions on an anonymous basis. I know that that is not her purpose but she is attempting to discipline a person for criticizing her and engaging in language that she finds offensive. That is anathema for most civil libertarians even though most of us find these writings to be offensive and insulting. As academics, we owe a special duty to free speech and the need to preserve protected spaces for such speech on campus and the Internet. This is precisely why it was so alarming to see Jewish students recently seek to strip anonymity for posters of material that they find objectionable. Free speech comes at a cost, particularly for those who become public figures. The Internet is rife with hateful and false statements. However, it is also the single greatest advance in free speech in history. I am confident that the work of Professor Leong will be remembered long after dybbuk has passed into well-deserved obscurity. However, this should not be part of that legacy.
I understand from personal experience the anger and frustration of having trolls and critics write false or vicious things about you. Yet, Professor Leong should withdraw this complaint. If not, it should be denied by the Commission as intruding into free speech areas, in my opinion.
What do you think?
Source: ABA Journal
Yes Elaine, there are many good men, my husband was one of them too. I know that if this would’ve happened our daughter who is an attorney and someone was trying to ruin her career, he would’ve probably had to have been restrained from harming the harrasser.
My daughter knows how to use big guns, she qualified with the Marines before leaving for Afghanistan.
There are a lot of women hunters out there in society today. They scare the pants off of insecure men.
Annie,
My husband is a male. He respects women. He doesn’t objectify women. There are many men who don’t behave in the stereotypical “boys will be boys” fashion.
bigfatmike; – Concur greatly – the issue is redress of grievance – and a jury or judge can resolve the issues.
—————————–
Kipsbay
I find the gal professor much more professional than the snide upon this realm would give her credit for; and plan to research her links on how to deal with the anxieties of social naysayer’s
—————————
annieofwi; I find the fact she didn’t pull the “I’ll call his–” a plus for the prof…
mespo,
I wasn’t addressing her method for dealing with the “dybbuk” problem. I was responding to some of the sexist comments that posters have written on this thread. You can criticize her methods all you want. I’ll take to criticizing sexist comments and attitudes toward women.
hsk, Good observations. A HUGE difference between people is the introvert/extrovert spectrum. In many respects, I have more similarities w/ an introvert women than I do w/ an extrovert man. I hate loud, slap you on the back, never shut up, men.
Bud.
Yes, she could have called his wife, for most normal men this would nip it in the bid. But then there are the exceptions.
Oh gosh, more wisdom of the ages.
Mespo at 2:50 — Actually, Professor Leong’s blog goes through the various ways to fight back. What methods would you suggest would be better after this had gone on for 14 months, given that she tried confronting him — only led to more harassment. Should she have outed him instead? Called his employer or his wife (if he has one)? Started blogging about him using his real name? Ignored it until he started harassing the next woman?
When you consider the other options, there is not, in my opinion, any one obvious answer.
Well, for one thing, the antagonist is getting more blog space and occupying more people’s minds than anyone I can remember in this group. If publicity of his gripes with the professor and to put himself out there is his goal, he has succeeded magically. There sure is a lot of wind associated with this tempest in this particular teapot.
The flow of the conversation went from the specifics of this incident to men/women differences in general. And, you learn something new every day. Just pass it on, although you’ll be surprised to hear many women say the same. My wife and I have had many conversations of women our age who had the same experience. One relates a funny story. She had 3 boys who all became hockey players! She was a bra burning, liberal, feminist who when they were young had a no gun rule. No real guns, no toy funs, no watching TV shows w/ guns, no movies w/ guns, etc. Her sons would steal her clothespins and make guns and go into the woods. Men hunt, women nest.
The ability to both fully appreciate and accept the extreme differences between men and women is something that our society needs to work on. Even the differences within the same sex are extreme. There should be mandatory classes given on both sexes in high school. Could you imagine a group of 50 year old guys teaching a group of 18 year old female high schoolers and vice versa? And then have a group of 50 year old females teach a group of 18 year old females and vice versa. I wonder if we could even agree on a curriculum? and would it be politically correct or the truth?
Mespo,
She has a right to be offended…. As you stated it’s not the proper venue to use to scold the attorney….
Elaine, I’ve never heard of anything like that remark about having a son makes a woman “understand”. I have a son and I don’t understand why some men feel they can engage in sexism and harassment and get away with it under the guise of free speech. This jerk was trying to hurt her professionally, obviously now that she is reciprocating it’s wrong ?
Elaine M:
I think we all agree that dybbuk is a cad. That’s the not the issue. Likewise, the question is not Leong’s right to “stand up” for herself. It’s merely the method she using to do so. Would you feel son sanguine if she called his office every day and cussed him out in retribution. That’s standing up for yourself to some.
We have every right to criticize her methods which, quite frankly, trash the very subject she’s teaching young lawyers. There are other ways to fight back besides going to the state to disbar a cad.
You asked to do role reversal. As DavidM pointed out, and as science shows us, in many instances involving issues between the sexes, that doesn’t work. I use Ibuprofen for headaches.
Men and women are different…so it’s okay to objectify women and to do what dybbuk did to Leong? And if a woman stands up for herself or other women when such things happen–then she just doesn’t have a clue because she never had a male child. OY! my head hurts.
There are laws that can make some things more equitable. Title 9 is a good example. It took sports away from some young men, but there are limited resources in this real world. UW was the only Big Ten school w/o a baseball team in order to fund a women’s softball team. That was tough for those young men. “Life is tough, wear a helmet.” And, like the creation of the EPA and the ADA, Title 9 was signed by a Republican president.
davidm,
I don’t know. Some men might have a problem with having such things said about them in a public forum in conjunction with dozens of other comments made about their being narcissists and questioning the scholarship of their legal articles–in an effort objectify and denigrate them and destroy their professional reputations. It wasn’t just one or two comments. It was an ongoing assault by dybbuk. I think Leong got fed up and wanted it to stop.
There’s a reason, Men are From Mars and Women are From Venus was a bestseller. Obviously, not enough people read it. On a fundamental level, there are biological and anthropological differences between the sexes. Laws, political correctness, etc. will not change that. What has helped more feminists from the 70’s[my wife included] understand this basic difference is having a son. Then the truth is realized.
There’s a reason, Men are From Mars and Women are From Venus was a bestseller. Obviously, not enough people read it. On a fundamental level, there are biological and anthropological differences between the sexes. Laws, political correctness, etc. will not change that. What has helped more feminists from the 70’s[my wife included] understand this basic difference is having a son.