« Changes at the top | Main | »

September 21, 2004

Another side

From the Washington Times


Deal Hudson, publisher of Crisis magazine and, until recently, a top Bush political adviser on outreach to Roman Catholics, will resign from the magazine at the end of the year after five of his most influential columnists pressured the board to get rid of him.
The columnists, who include some of the nation's best-known Catholic scholars, told the board in a letter that they would leave the magazine unless the board ejected Mr. Hudson, 54.

According to two scholars familiar with the letter, the columnists were angry about an Aug. 19 National Catholic Reporter (NCR) expose on Mr. Hudson's sexual liaison with an 18-year-old student in 1994, an action that cost him his tenured professorship at Fordham University and a $30,000 settlement.


In addition, specific accusations of more recent sexual misconduct had come to the board's attention, one scholar said.
"This was not about one incident 10 years ago," he said. "It's surprising it was held down as long as it was. I haven't gone out of my way to track Deal Hudson's improprieties — I could be doing nothing else. But you began to wonder after a while if they are true."

...After Mr. Hudson quit the Bush-Cheney campaign in mid-August, support for him and Crisis among Catholic intellectuals evaporated.

Advisory board member Peggy Noonan, a speechwriter for President Reagan who is volunteering her time with the Bush re-election effort, quickly canceled a speech she had agreed to give at the magazine's $250-a-plate fund-raiser last Friday night at the Willard Hotel.
Many of Washington's best-known Catholics also boycotted the dinner, and there were many empty seats at the gathering of 330 people. Miss Noonan also turned down an annual award given by the magazine.

Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d834216f0e53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Another side:

» http://yawpings.stblogs.org/archives/017880.html from Vociferous Yawpings
So, Deal Hudson has resigned as publisher of Crisis. I for one refuse to pass judgment on Hudson. I would, however, like to point out a few things surrounding this story. First, have a look at Amy Welborn’s blog... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 22, 2004 8:08:17 AM

» Deal Hudson Resigns from Vociferous Yawpings
So, Deal Hudson has resigned as publisher of Crisis. I for one refuse to pass judgment on Hudson. I would, however, like to point out a few things surrounding this story. First, have a look at Amy Welborn’s blog here.... [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 22, 2004 8:23:11 AM

Comments

I'm rather shocked by the seeming wholesale shunning of Hudson. I don't get it - have these people never sinned?

Posted by: Cornelius at Sep 21, 2004 11:39:30 PM

In addition, specific accusations of more recent sexual misconduct had come to the board's attention, one scholar said.
"This was not about one incident 10 years ago," he said.

Posted by: Christopher Rake at Sep 21, 2004 11:45:06 PM

I would be very surprised if it had been a single incident 10 years ago. The incident had all the signs of practiced behavior, including telling his wife he was taking a student home. A single fall would not have had that calculated aspect. It would have been an act of grand passion, not great plotting. And you are judged by the company you keep, so it hardly comes as a shock in this election year that people aren't running to embrace Deal and stand by their man.

Posted by: Radactrice at Sep 22, 2004 12:34:26 AM

See http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/hardright.cgi/2004/09/10/_IT_S_ABOUT_OUR_VAL

Posted by: Truth seeker at Sep 22, 2004 4:29:31 AM

How un-Catholic a send-off. Couldn't they have said he was resigning "for reasons of health"? Weren't there any Roman basilicas whose parish newsletters he could edit?

Posted by: Rod Dreher at Sep 22, 2004 6:35:54 AM

Unless there's some nastiness we're not hearing about, it all seems like normal prudent behavior to me. "If you want Crisis magazine to survive, you should step down. If you won't do it, I don't see why I should contribute and help you murder the magazine."

Now that Hudson is "pursuing other interests", as they say, the magazine can concentrate on recovery. This will also help Mr. Hudson; he will be able to accumulate some credits to his reputation to place against the debits. It will also close out the story and let him start writing a new one.

Posted by: Maureen at Sep 22, 2004 6:59:29 AM

Rod - What exactly are you getting at...ugh...

Maybe it would have been more appropriate if we put Deal in the town square stocks, shave his head, paint him blue, and throw rotting veggies at him. Aw, the heck with that. Who's up for building a galley, eh?

Posted by: Mark Windsor at Sep 22, 2004 7:44:48 AM

I wonder if "five of his most influential columnists" and/or Miss Noonan knew about Hudson's behavior before NCR's dumpster dive. If his antics were such an open secret -- Rod referred over and over to knowing all about it -- where was the outrage then?

Maureen, don't kid yourself about any "new story." The people who made him have cast him out, and he'll wear the scarlet letter henceforward. He won't be heard from again. The Deal is done.

Posted by: John Heavrin at Sep 22, 2004 7:49:29 AM

Some of you folks are unbelievable. The Washington Times story reports that new allegations of sexual misconduct with women have surfaced. Wrote TWT:

In addition, specific accusations of more recent sexual misconduct had come to the board's attention, one scholar said.

"This was not about one incident 10 years ago," he said. "It's surprising it was held down as long as it was. I haven't gone out of my way to track Deal Hudson's improprieties — I could be doing nothing else. But you began to wonder after a while if they are true."

If anyone was aware prior to this that Deal Hudson had had, or may still be having, extramarital affairs, I don't know them.
What I do know is that more than a few Catholic insiders had ample reason to suspect that Deal had trouble dealing with female employees. I saw that with my own eyes (it was nothing sexual), and heard it from others who work or who have worked for Crisis. There was reason for concern.

The revelation of his disgusting behavior at Fordham was news to me, and I assume was also to Novak, Royal and the others who went to the board after it came out, and said: Either he goes, or we go. It seems plausible to me that this might have been the first concrete evidence of what they've suspected for a while about his tendencies. Perhaps they found it easier to believe subsequent allegations of misconduct, in light of the Fordham revelation.

I find it psychologically telling, John, that you want to blame Michael Novak, et alia, for distancing themselves from Deal Hudson, rather than Deal Hudson for sullying the magazine's reputation through his behavior. That's how so many Catholics are: blame those who refuse, on principle, to play Circle-the-Wagons any longer. It's a fool's game.

Posted by: Rod Dreher at Sep 22, 2004 8:47:22 AM

Go Rod.

I wonder also what this board is thinking. Specific allegations came to them of a more recent vintage, as I pointed out they would last month, and what have they done? They have changed the name on his door from Publisher of Crisis to Director of the Morley Institute. At least the Bishops moved the bad priests around. Here, the Crisis board is keeping him in his same office in only a slightly different job. Oh my, can anyone say lawsuit?

Posted by: Frank at Sep 22, 2004 8:53:01 AM

At least, to Mr. Hudson's credit, he has not appeared at a news conference to declare that "My truth is that I am a..." whatever. Sinner seems to me to be the most appropriate word to follow that infamous phrase. Who among us is not?

I have enjoyed Crisis Magazine under Mr. Hudson's tutelage and hope that his departure does not adversley affect the otherwise sterling quality of the magazine. Hopefully, Mr. Hudson's talents are inate and he will easily be able to replicate his success in another forum. I pray for him and wish him well. I pray for the remaining board members that their collective wisdom on business decisions is proper and correct and that their intellectual output is equally inspired.

Posted by: John Griffin at Sep 22, 2004 8:55:08 AM

I am disappointed that the Washington Times permitted an anonymous "scholar" to make an unsubstantiated allegation against Hudson in this article.

If you've got the goods on Deal Hudson as some sort of serial philanderer or sexual harasser, then produce the evidence for your readers. Do the legwork, and get it on the record. Don't let somebody trash Hudson anonymously.

On a less important note, I am amused to learn from this article that Peggy Noonan is considered a "Catholic intellectual."

Surely this is a stretch?

Posted by: Whitcomb at Sep 22, 2004 8:57:06 AM

No, what he did was lie and also let his friends come to his public defense when he knew the truth. He knew other allegations were out there because he caused them. Yet, yet, yet, he let Craig Richardson, MJ Anderson and others go into the public square and defend him as if the Fordham thing was the only charge!

Knowing what he knows, he should have resigned when the single story surfaced last month. As it is, he has endangered his family, the magazine, our common causes and the Church. Shame. Shame. Shame.

Posted by: Frank at Sep 22, 2004 9:00:17 AM

I think that it isn't right to hash out about other unspecified "improprieties". If specific (and not obviously incredible) charges emerge, let them be discussed then. Until then, it's only speculation. In this case, what is known is ghastly enough.
Whitcomb, I'm sorry you chose this sad occasion to take another cheap shot at Peggy. You're better than that.

Posted by: Hunk Hondo at Sep 22, 2004 9:20:13 AM

Thanks, Rod, for the psychological diagnosis, and sealing it with calling me a "fool." Much appreciated, sir.


Posted by: John Heavrin at Sep 22, 2004 9:21:28 AM

Some initial thoughts:

(1) If the only misconduct allegation against Hudson that was substantiated was the Fordham incident 10 years ago, then Hudson should not have been forced out for reasons that have been picked over and over again.

(2) If the recent allegations against Hudson are substantiated, it was right to force Hudson out depending on what they are. Which leads to...

(3) We don't know what the recent allegations are and whether they have been substantiated. I think its wrong to condemn a man because of unspecified allegations or because he gave somebody the willies. Also, query whether it is appropriate - as someone pointed out above - for a reporter to publish a story from anonymous sources claiming unspecified allegations of misconduct. It may be ethical, in this case, in order to explain why the board of Crisis did what it did. But it is a close case.

(4) I am, therefore, reserving judgment on the latest story. I do wonder, however, based upon the quote from Crisis that Lee Penn provided on another thread whether Crisis had any wiggle room whatsoever if, as that article suggests, the guiding ideology of the magazine is to encourage a civil war against sex sinners. They have pretty much boxed themselves in, and unnecessarily so, in my view.

Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Sep 22, 2004 9:25:01 AM

Hunk, OK, you make a fair point. I probably should have laid off Peggy Noonan.

On the other hand, this WT article has a patina of Catholic intellectuals and "scholars" running through it that is a bit much for this reader.

I am not a regular reader of Crisis. I wouldn't know Deal Hudson if I knocked him over. I don't have a scintilla of emotional investment in this story. But speaking of cheap shots, I think the Washington Times delivered one in this story--regardless of what anyone thinks about Mr. Hudson.

Posted by: Whitcomb at Sep 22, 2004 9:38:38 AM

Cheap shots? It's a story about why Hudson resigned yesterday. The board of a magazine is confronted by facts about that magazine's publisher, which then perhaps puts other incidents in a new light. They decide, for the good of the magazine, he needs to go. Former publisher sends out an email letter describing his resignation, without any references to the board's collapse of support for him.

Who's cheap?

Posted by: amy at Sep 22, 2004 9:43:27 AM

"If the recent allegations against Hudson are substantiated, it was right to force Hudson out depending on what they are...I think its wrong to condemn a man because of unspecified allegations or because he gave somebody the willies."

Exactly.

O father Abram, what these Christians are,
Whose own hard dealings teaches them suspect
the thoughts of others!

Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh. - Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice"

Posted by: TSO at Sep 22, 2004 9:47:53 AM

The Washington Times story was necessary.

I am a daily newspaper journalist who usually loathes use of unnamed sources. In this case, however, I do trust the reporting of Julia Duin.

She thorough, well-connected and a serious Christian who, I'm sure, wouldn't report information that's not confirmed.

I would have more sympathy for Hudson in this situation if he hadn't whined about being a "lightning rod" and implying he was doing this for his family.

Chip Wilson

Posted by: Chip Wilson at Sep 22, 2004 9:56:07 AM

That piece at the Chronicles was as one would except from the Rockford Institute pretty disgusting and vile stuff. While he makes some very good points, he also is a bit detached from reality. This is the group that kicked Father Neuhaus out of his office. Michael Novak is a good and decent man striving to live his faith. Does he fail? Sure. But he doesn't deserve that sort of hit. Furthermore, behind so much in that article is a thinly veiled disdain for Jews. I don't make those sorts of accusations lightly but it is well-known that many paleos flirt with anti-semitism.

Posted by: Cheeky Lawyer at Sep 22, 2004 9:57:39 AM

Rod - for what it's worth, I think Hudson should have moved on. What I don't get is the desire for public humiliation. Some of us are still willing to forgive and move on. I guess that's just not good enough for some people, eh?

Posted by: Mark Windsor at Sep 22, 2004 9:58:31 AM

Well, it sounds to me like there were other ALLEGATIONS, and the board became uncomfortable and gave him the heave-ho. It doesn't sound like the allegations were necessarily substantiated.

If, in fact, the allegations are true, then it shows a pattern, and it was certainly appropriate for Crisis to sever ties with him altogether, and even letting him run the Morley Institute is pretty questionable.

But for Deal to claim that it was his decision when he was clearly forced out seems rather strange. That's like the guy who quits before he can be fired.

Still, I am not sure why support for the MAGAZINE evaporated. It has been and continues to be a high quality Catholic publication. Deal writes *ONE* page out of 64. I would continue to subscribe whether Deal was in charge or not, as long as the content quality remains high.

Posted by: Dave Mueller at Sep 22, 2004 9:59:16 AM

Amy, I'm speaking of the responsibility of a newspaper.

The Crisis board may or may not have additional information about Deal Hudson that led to the resignation.

My complaint is with the Washington Times. Don't cheap-shot Deal Hudson with an anonymous allegation that, in effect, says he has so many paramours we can't keep up with him.

It was the responsibility of the newspaper to attempt to verify the new allegations. Failing that, the newspaper should not have permitted a source, scholarly or not, to comment anonymously about Deal Hudson in its news columns.

Posted by: Whitcomb at Sep 22, 2004 9:59:31 AM

And while I agree the NCR piece should never have been published, Deal Hudson should never have been a public figure after Fordham. As someone put after initial story, he should have gone and toiled in anonymity rather than take a public position. The man seems to have serious issues with pride and one wonders if being in such a public spot (outside of the question of his history) was a good thing for him to be doing.

Furthermore, this, just like priests who molested and should never be returned to ministry, is not about forgiveness. People seem to equate forgiveness with remaining and functioning as one did before as if nothing wrong had occurred. In fact, forgiveness and punishment are not mutually exclusive. Deal should never have been editor in the first place. Now he should exit stage right and try to pick up the pieces of his life. We should love him and pray for him. But we shouldn't let that love and charity stop us from recognizing the justice of his being forced to resign his position.

Posted by: Cheeky Lawyer at Sep 22, 2004 10:05:39 AM