« Comments and more | Main | Slowly but surely.... »
August 19, 2004
Here' tis
By NCR Washington correspondent Joe Feuerherd
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83432284c53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Here' tis:
Comments
Having read the article now ... I wonder if Hudson couldn't have toughed it out (easy for me to be brave with someone else's humiliation, obviously).
This article doesn't say too much that is new ... it just fleshes out the details of things that had been hinted at and could be inferred from Hudson's career trajectory. It'd be like 10 years from now, someone writing about the details of Cipel and McGreevey's first date -- what song was on the CD, what type of wine they drank, what position they used, etc.
And, much more importantly, this article has nothing that is current, either in terms of further pecadilloes, ongoing blackmail or any other reason to think Hudson's past grotesqueries haunt him in contemporarily relevant way -- unless being a Bush adviser is something bad ... uh, hold on. In fact, the article proves exactly the opposite ... the temporal trajectory is "Hudson went on to be successful in a new field."
I must add though that, absent the unlikely event of our Blogmeistress outright lying about his autobiography, Hudson's vagueness and selective editing did make things ripe for someone to do something like this.
Posted by: Victor Morton at Aug 19, 2004 2:37:09 PM
Frank -
If you're still around on this new thread, I recall you said something to the effect that "there are more stories of a more recent vintage."
I admit I read the NCR piece rather quickly, but I didn't see any. Am I missing something?
Thanks,
Posted by: Mio at Aug 19, 2004 2:42:32 PM
Victor, I can't be so calm. Perhaps because I was once a naive 18-year old college student myself.
I am actually, I confess, brought to tears by this young woman's story. Hudson knew about her troubled past and present, invited her, 3 years under drinking age, to a bar, and...
I know this was past. And the questions of past sins and the present still stand. But, as I teeter on the edge of saying something I shouldn't....incidents like this do not happen out of the blue.
I am speechless.
Posted by: amy at Aug 19, 2004 2:44:39 PM
NCR tone - spiteful. Almost seems like a bit of professional jealousy the way they noted Hudson's A-list status.
I'm not pleased, nor am I surprised.
I think this is shameful.
Posted by: cathy at Aug 19, 2004 2:46:05 PM
A hit piece--pure and simple.
Tally? The admittedly disgusting Poppas incident (both participants apparently under the influence) and two annulments, ranging from 10 to 22 years ago.
That's it? Despite teasers about something more recent, perhaps even ongoing? This expose is 100% pure, grade A, USDA-certified BS. What, Joe, couldn't find the dress and cigar, too?
For my money, Hudson hasn't been sufficiently contrite. God knows the "mistakes were made" defense has been getting a little tired in Catholic circles since 2001. It would be nice to see something a little more breast-beating on his part. Then again, I remember how little Swaggert's tear geyser "I have sinned against you" performance really was worth in the end. Ultimately, his level of contrition is not my problem, it's Hudson's.
For Tom Roberts & Co. to publish this tabloid crap and simultaneously get all huffy about Hudson's pre-emptive strike is rich beyond words. The thin-lipped, tut-tutting schoolmarm pose won't wash, Mr. Roberts: the fact is, you now edit the National Catholic Enquirer.
Posted by: Dale Price at Aug 19, 2004 2:47:29 PM
Well, this sounds like garden-variety adultery to me, albeit with the student-teacher twist. This does not at all appear to be "sexual harrassment" to me at all. This seems like a drunk 18 year old young women who regretted a bad decision that she made, but wanted to blame someone else. She sounds like the type of girl who gets drunk at a frat party, sleeps with someone that she wouldn't otherwise dream of sleeping with and then claiming that she was raped. Maybe the Catholic League was right after all. Teachers should not be sleeping with their students to be sure, but she does not sound like much of a victim to me.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Aug 19, 2004 2:48:32 PM
Amy,
Frankly, while the story is certainly a shocker, I think at least in part you're reacting to a skilled bit of writing.
To my (perhaps jaded) eye, Mr. Feuerherd's "victimization" of both Ms. Coppas and Mr. Ekeh was a bit maudlin. (With all due respect to them both, and prayers for their future success in life).
I could as easily write:
"Politics aside, did Feuerherd have any personal regret that Hudson, a father of two children, had lost his job? Not in the least."
Posted by: Mio at Aug 19, 2004 2:48:54 PM
Those other newwer stories did not survive the lawyers....
Victor,
Would you say the same thing if this was about a 45 year old John Kerry getting an 18 year old drunk and demanding/getting sex?
Posted by: Frank at Aug 19, 2004 2:49:51 PM
We should pray for Hudson's wife and children.
Hudson himself made the right decision in resigning. This is despicable behavior by a college professor against a vulnerable teenage girl. Every bit as reprehensible as a priest molesting an altar boy. He should be ashamed of his behavior.
Posted by: Desert Chatter at Aug 19, 2004 2:50:46 PM
Sounds bad for Hudson, however this story read similar to softcore porn. The writer delighted in the details and enjoyed twisting the knife in Deal's ribs.
Posted by: Ken at Aug 19, 2004 2:50:47 PM
While I assumed there would be more than largely the details about one incident, it's appalling nonetheless. According to Poppas, he was aware of her fragile psyche, and, like a true predator, took advantage of her most likely because of it. That's depraved.
There's also the account of him openly engaging in inappropriate behavior at the bar. I don't see how he could have survived this; Rove & Co. wouldn't have wanted him.
Did anyone notice Feuerherd's "snark" and smugness, e.g., ending the piece with "[i]t may be time for yet another transformation"? The piece would have been more devastating had he let the facts speak for themselves. And Roberts indeed seems peeved about being scooped by Hudson since he makes a considerable fuss over the NRO piece.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Aug 19, 2004 2:54:28 PM
Mio, don't you dare patronize me.
What I know is this: If any liberal religious or political figure were revealed to have done this, even ten years ago with a vulnerable 18-year old...if it were a liberal bishop or priest with an 18-year old high school senior or college freshman, and if it were revealed by Michael Rose or the Wanderer, people here would have said seducer's head.
Posted by: amywelborn at Aug 19, 2004 2:54:40 PM
Notice the juxtaposition of the times here:
""I think I've got someone who can make it work," Novak told a leading Catholic layperson in 1994. Hudson became senior editor in October 1994, editor in March 1995.
***
While Hudson was taking over the reigns at Crisis, Cara Poppas consulted an attorney. Arriving back at Fordham for the fall semester, she discovered that the bulk of her financial aid had been withdrawn due to poor academic performance. She was broke.
Poppas blamed her downward academic spiral on the incident with Hudson.
She filed suit against Fordham (a claim that was eventually dismissed) and Hudson. Hudson, recalled Poppas, offered $10,000 to settle his case. She refused.
In early 1996, Hudson offered to settle for $30,000, one-third of which would go immediately to her attorney, the remainder to her in quarterly installments. Poppas' attorney suggested she take the deal. She agreed."
I assume (perhaps wrongly) that no one at Crisis knew of this ongoing settlement negotiation.
When the private person and the public person have an extremely at-odds relationship, trouble is bound to follow.
Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican. Or any other type of human being.
Posted by: David at Aug 19, 2004 2:54:51 PM
Amy's right on with this one. I don't care if the girl was the biggest slut in the entire university. A 40+ year old married man has absolutely no business whatsoever doing what he did. And if it's fair to bring up things that Presidential candidates i.e. Kerry said and did 30 years ago and parse them to the finest details and demand specific explanations then it certainly is fair to hold someone accountable for something he did 10 years ago and ended up settling for $30,000. Just because Deal is a conservative Catholic on the right side of issues doesn't make NCR the demon for reporting the matter. If Deal has set himself up as the spokesperson for conservative Catholics, maybe those same people ought to know who is speaking for them and what's in his past.
Posted by: Radactrice at Aug 19, 2004 2:55:14 PM
Guessing the details came from a transcript. But also, I know this sounds a little strange, the details from the transcript are there, presumably under oath, and no one can argue with them -- changing them, even if to give a veil of decency, means you have to bend over backwards to try to make sure what you're saying isn't misleading or inaccurate.
Posted by: Barbara at Aug 19, 2004 2:55:34 PM
A 45 year old admired professor taking a vulnerable 18 year old female student of said professor under his wing. A few drinks . . .
A 45 year old admired priest taking a vulnerable teenage boy under his wing. A few ice cream cones or a few drinks . . .
I cannot believe that some commentators are actually defending Mr. Hudson's actions in preying upon a vulnerable co-ed. "The slut made him do it!"
Mr. Hudson makes a living poking people in the eyes. Do it often enough, whether it is fair or not, someone is going to return the favor.
Posted by: Badly Drawn Catholic at Aug 19, 2004 2:55:49 PM
I'm pretty speechless as well, that was a searing description. I'll say a prayer for them both.
Yet as I was reading it I was thinking, and not the least reason for which were the sexual details--should I foward this on to anyone? I mean does anyone really need to know this?
Isn't this just scandal, properly understood, at its worst? Can we really evaluate the "journalistic" significance of this without reference to that moral category?
The author says "The notion that this story was somehow politically motivated is incorrect." Perhaps. But the inclusion of many of the more shocking details discloses what might be called a theological motivation. Some of those details I would say, both for reasons of detraction and scandal, ought never to be included, no matter what the putative "good" to be accomplished.
The fact that some think some end (journalism, full disclosure, ideological antagonism) justifies those means really discloses a difference in Faith.
Posted by: al at Aug 19, 2004 2:56:26 PM
Yeah, this didn't have recent allegations as I expected so it makes the issue a little tougher.
We have man engage in some pretty horrible behavior ten years ago but yet it was more than ten years after his conversion. (He intentionally made it sound like this took place pre-conversion in his NRO piece.) I think we all agree that if this had taken place last year it would be a problem. What about two years? What is the statute of limitations for this kind of thing especially considering he was full-time conservative/orthodox Catholic at the time? And then for him to immediately jump into Catholic publishing seems a little wrong.
Most interesting is that Joe Feuerherd’s reporting that many of Hudson’s “ideological soul-mates” would not speak well of him. To me it suggests that Hudson is not as rehabilitated as he’d have us believe.
Posted by: piraeus at Aug 19, 2004 2:58:23 PM
An 18 year old ward of the courts. Suicidal and looking up to an older man who spouts a moral agenda to look after her. Then he gets her underage-self drunk and uses her for sex. A 45 year old married man. This makes me want to throw up.
If he was innocent would he pay 30K. Maybe in Deal's world this is small change but in my world I would have to be guilty to pay such a sum.
If this is true, Deal is lower than I ever imagined. How can any of you defend the behaviour as irrelevant is beyond me.
Posted by: SiliconValleySteve at Aug 19, 2004 2:58:35 PM
The allegations here are quite awful. We should bear in mind, however, that we are getting only one, heavily dramatized side of the story. And even if every detail is accurate, I still don't think these allegations are newsworthy. I can't think of a comparable example of a story like this--about a repented-of sexual indiscretion from years ago--being published about a mere political adviser. As I said in the other thread, politicians know that they give up a lot of their privacy when they take office; not so with mere advisers. NCR's tone is truly spiteful.
Posted by: Cornelius at Aug 19, 2004 3:00:05 PM
Amy,
yes, I agree. Now, isn't it amazing how everyone is point out how Mr. Hudson was drunk at the time, while conveniently overlooking the fact that, as you say, he was
a) keenly aware of her past (and present) troubles;
b) invited her to come drinking with a larger group, even wheedling her when she said she shouldn't;
c) plied her with liquor and
d) apparently wasn't too shy about having PDAs with other young women in the bar in front of everyone.
To me, that makes him more predator than prey. Come on! The guy knew what he was doing (and presumably wasn't yet drunk) when he set the circumstances in motion for a "near occasion of sin," so regardless of the possible diminution of responsibility because of his inebrated state, HE BEARS THE GREATER RESPONSIBILITY than an admittedly troubled teenaged girl.
If Ono Ekeh, or Andrew Greeley, or some other imagined hero of the left were doing this, most of us conservative types here would be on him like a bum on a baloney sandwich. Think Monica Lewinsky was troubled or mixed up? Sure. But at least she had two parents and a home. This chick had major problems, and Mr. Hudson was aware of enough of them to consider her easy meat.
So get over yourselves! Yes, the timing is suspicious, I suppose. But when they criticized Nixon for playing up his opponents past misdeeds, he pointed out, "Those people actually did the things I said they did. I just reported them."
Until conservatives are willing to apply the same standard to themselves that they apply to liberals, we're no better off than the Pharisee who said, "Lord, I thank thee that I am not as other men, even as this tax collector here."
In the end, I think Mr. Hudson has done the right thing in resigning in an effort to spare the Bush campaign as much of the infamy as possible.
Posted by: Jonathan at Aug 19, 2004 3:01:22 PM
Deal Hudson's conduct with his under-age student is absolutely repugnant.
And were both parties "apparently under the influence"? Hudson had the presence of mind to make up a story to his wife before taking his nearly passed-out student into his office and raping her.
The article also sheds light on Hudson's dealings with the shadiest of right-wingnuts like Scaife.
But perhaps the real story is the rift within the conservative Catholic "lay heirarchy". It will be interesting to see who chooses to come to this rapists defense.
Posted by: Esquire at Aug 19, 2004 3:02:54 PM
Ken, do you know why details are necessary?
here's why: because supporters of the perp or the accused or whatever you would like to call him will tend to minimize the incident if the details are not known. They will talk about "making a pass at a student" or "making advances" or "picking up a drunk at a bar" or "past mistakes that hurt people."
The unpleasant details are unpleasant but important if we are to talk about the truth.
And please note that the fallout from this incident did not seem to be contested by Hudson at any level - of his position in the college or the lawsuit.
Posted by: amy at Aug 19, 2004 3:02:54 PM
Good point SiliconValleySteve. How many people who were innocent of such charges would pay $30,000? Even if it is just pocket change to Mr. Hudson, most innocent people would fight the charges because they were INNOCENT!
Posted by: Radactrice at Aug 19, 2004 3:03:10 PM
Frank wrote:
Those other newwer stories did not survive the lawyers....
Frank, you need to put up or shut up. You keep alluding to "newer stories" and hinting that there are present misdeeds in Hudson's life.
Then when you are called to account you coyly say that those things "did not survive the lawyers". So now you're using your very lack of evidence as evidence. That's dishonest.
Furthermore, what you are spouting is innuendo, pure and simple. It's calumny and libel.
I thought the NCR hit piece was low, but what you're doing is even lower. It's a sin, and it's despicable.
Posted by: Fr. Rob Johansen at Aug 19, 2004 3:03:51 PM
