Professor Puts Money Where Mouth Is
Oct 19, 2009
29 Comments
Scott T. FitzgibbonNEWTON, MA — Parsing through a decade’s worth of Federal Election Commission (FEC) data, Eagleionline has determined that Professor Scott T. Fitzgibbon puts his money where his mouth is: since 2000, the embattled Boston College Law School contracts and family law professor has contributed over $60,000 to conservative candidates and causes throughout the country.
The recipients of Fitzgibbon’s contributions have consistently taken pro-life or anti-gay marriage positions. While the overwhelming majority of these recipients have been Republicans, Fitzgibbon has also donated to congressional Democrats who oppose abortion, including Rep. Steve Lynch of Massachusetts ($1,000) and Rep. Michael Michaud of Maine ($1,000).
In all, Fitzgibbon contributed between $300 and $2,300 to political candidates in at least 26 states, for a total of at least $62,100 since May of 2000.
Fitzgibbon’s nationwide political activity has attracted attention from the media in the past. In an article on November 1, 2002, the Fresno Bee asked Fitzgibbon why he contributed $1,000 to a Republican congressional candidate in a race in central California. According to the story, Fitzgibbon acknowledged that his contribution was prompted by information from the “National Right to Life Committee.”
Fitzgibbon further stated to the newspaper, “‘I donated to Monteith because of his commitment to the protection of unborn life.’” Available at 2002 WLNR 2008877.
Another newspaper story reveals that Fitzgibbon’s contributions followed the anti-gay marriage and abortion theme during the last presidential election. In a 2007 interview with the Belmont Citizen-Herald, Fitzgibbon, identified as a “Boston College professor of family marriage law,” stated that he donated $2,300 to Sen. Sam Brownback’s presidential campaign “‘because of his pro-life views and his position that a marriage is between one man and one woman.’”
In mid-September, Fitzgibbon sparked a cultural controversy at Boston College Law School when he appeared in a political advertisement in Maine opposing same-sex marriage. Students and faculty opined on free speech, tolerance, discrimination, mis-quotations, and the use of the BC Law trademark.
Then, in early October, a 2008 student complaint against Fitzgibbon surfaced. The complaint called into question Professor’s Fitzgibbon’s impartiality in the classroom.
Who posted this article?
Don’t forget this thousands to Marilyn Musgrave, one of the leading proponents of the failed Federal Marriage Amendment and who was also quoted as saying she does not think there is any more important an issue out there than the protection of marriage. Yep, nothing else. Poverty, crime, war, collapsing economy. Nope, nothing else more important than making sure those pesky gays can’t get gay married.Oh she also was one of our fabulous Congress members to push for Congressional involvement in the Terri Schiavo issue.Oh and she also wanted to have 2007 be recognized as the Year of the Bible. What? Worst of all, she opposes online poker. Thanks a lot Scotty.
In a May 3, 2007 debate among the 10 candidates for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, Brownback was one of three who indicated that he did not believe in evolution….
good for him. why is this a story?
Oh noes!!! Peeple has views diffrent than my ownz!!! Shun themz!!!
What’s the deal with the continuing coverage on FitzGibbon? Is the news cycle really that slow? Professor FitzGibbon brought some criticism upon himself by appearing in the recent commercials. The point was made, congratulations on breaking it, move on.The yellow journalism is starting to annoy, stop it.On a separate note, I bet I’ll never see a critical review of professors who donate funds to pro-choice candidates despite the strict opposition of the Jesuit community and thus Boston College. Apparently it’s only cool to poke fun at conservatives.
Here’s EagleI. Here’s a dead horse. Watch EagleI beat a dead horse. Now watch it again. And again. And again.
Worst. Website. Ever.
If any of you would like to write for EagleI and discuss those professors, have at it. I believe they have made it clear they welcome alternative views. Welcome to law school…and the real world of higher education. As a conservative bible beating douchebag, you’re outnumbered. Even at a Catholic school. Get over it.
I’m not sure what is more embarrassing – the fact that this is a published story on Eaglei, or the fact that the authors actually spent time parsing through a decade’s worth of FEC data to get it…. I guess there are some people at this school with way too much time on their hands.
Professor Fitzgibbon is a conservative hero. Unlike Dean Garvey, who gave $1,500 to John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election.
Of course he did…it was the only shot of BC Law ever having a graduate be President. Frankly, it was a wise business choice on his part. Shows you how deeply he feels about conservative issues I guess…frankly I’m glad he takes his position as Dean and his regard for this school more seriously than his unfortunate conservative values.
"conservative bible beating douchebag" and "unfortunate conservative views." This must be the famous liberal open-mindedness I’ve heard so much about.Between this FitzGibbon witch hunt and those comments lashing out in inexplicable defense of it, not to mention the other comments on this website, you guys are in serious need of a better PR department. At the very least a switch to decaf.After all the effort the students have put into making the LGBT community feel welcome here at BC Law, I wonder whether some people don’t mind if us douchebags feel unwelcome. Personally I don’t mind the double standard, but I can’t speak for everybody.
Sean,First, it certainly seems that you mind a double standard since you took the time to bring it up. Yet, I haven’t seen any editorials or opinion pieces regarding your views on Fitzgibbon or same sex marriage or LGBT welcomeness or the importance of the sanctity of marriage or otherwise. I believe Eagleionline is run by students and obviously if you think they need a more balanced viewpoint, you should obviously volunteer to be a part of that. That said, from my experience here, I have serious doubts about just how welcoming you are to LGBT students. There is quite a difference between tolerance and acceptance. In my limited involvement around campus, you don’t come across as particularly tolerant of the LGBT students, their activities or at the very least, the idea that they should be shielded from discriminatory hiring or selection practices at the law school. If I recall correctly, when they tabled for gender expression and identity to be included in the non-discrimination policy, you smugly shrugged and refused to sign onto it. Sadly, the administration at BC seems to share your idea of what it is to feel "welcome" and refuses to add it to the non-discrimination policy. Your feigned outrage over some random anti-Catholic sentiment isn’t fooling anyone. BC Law is certainly a welcoming place for people of various faiths, backgrounds, sexual orientation in my experience, with limited exceptions that anyone would face anywhere else…but, let’s not pretend that at the end of the day, it isn’t still a Catholic institution and for a law school one of the most conservative top tier ones you’ll find at least in terms of student body and faculty. As for what you’ll face when you actually graduate and start working outside of the shelter of the Jesuit educational system, I can’t say, but I think you’ll probably find you miss the intense acceptance of the Catholic dogma that permeates BC Law.
I agree with Sean in that the use of the phrase "conservative bible beating douchebag" was disrespectful and, in any case, counterproductive. I urge Caleb to apologize and rephrase. Regarding the point that there’s a double standard at BC Law against conservatives, though, I must say that I doubt it. The reasons liberals are upset at conservatives like Garvey and Fitzgibbon is that Garvey and Fitzgibbon have acted, at least at times, imprudently. As evidence, I would cite Garvey’s attempt to restructure the Alumni Counsel and Fitzgibbon’s decision to participate in the now infamous t.v. commercial. No one is upset at, for example, Professor Brown at BC — he’s a well-known conservative that people seem to get along with, or at least not hate. In contrast, who have the most active liberals been at BC? Kent Greenfield. This is an example of a guy that teaches "corporations for commies" and yet students, both liberal and conservative, continue to take his class despite two alternatives (Brudney and Jones). People don’t hate Greenfiend. They may disagree with him, but they don’t hate him. If they hated him, they wouldn’t take his class. And yet, it is the most populous corporations class that BC offers. I would suggest that the anger at Fitzgibbon is not the product of the "liberal double standard," but, again, the fact that Fitzgibbon did something dumb and has not made the slightest attempt to make amends for it. Btw, people also aren’t so sympathetic to Professor Fitzgibbon because he ranks among BC Law’s least effective teachers. I’m not saying that that justifies people calling him a "douchbag" (it doesn’t), but that people are less likely to come to the defense of a teacher they didn’t like that much to begin with.
I apologize for using the word "douchebag," perhaps a little strong…it wasn’t really meant that harshly because, and I’d like to clarify, it was specifically intended for one of the other commenters lamenting how conservatives seem to always be the target of "attacks" and not for Catholic students, professors or Fitzgibbon in particular. My point was welcome to the real world and to just get snippy with someone who would rather comment on here than actually do anything productive to change what they see as an unfortunate imbalance in journalism (again, welcome to the real world).That said, I don’t take back my general disdain for those who use the bible as a tool to promote hatred and inequality (ie: biblebeating) in our legal system and I’m certainly not anti-Catholic or anti-religion. It’s all in how you promote the Word…and those who choose to use it as a tool of hate won’t be getting any apologies from me.
I’m satisfied with what has been said on both sides regarding the FitzGibbon thing. But I’d like to clear up the accusation about the petition. My views on what Catholic institutions should include in their nondiscrimination policies (views which are still not settled, given my lack of full understanding about both sides of that issue) are more complex than what can be extrapolated from a single decision not to sign a petition, whose outcome probably was not jeopardized by the lack of my signature anyway. If my refusal to sign one petition a year ago signifies to anyone that I must think LGBT people are not welcome at this school, well, there’s probably little I can say to convince anybody otherwise. But I remain happy to discuss it regardless.I do apologize to Anon for the obvious hurt I caused. That was never my intention.I also declined to sign that cage-free chicken thing, even though it’s a perfectly worthy cause.
This is a little off-topic, but I’m confused by the whole popular class argument about Greenfield. Am I really the only one who registered for this class because it fit into my schedule and is a prerequisite for pretty much every class I want to take in the next two years? I don’t think a class that is the foundation for several other classes should be taught with any particular professor’s point of view, and while there may be people who take this class for that reason it isn’t fair to say that all of them enjoy this; to me its just a necessary evil.
To the anonymous person who attacked Sean for his lack of real world knowledge, you obviously don’t know him at all. First of all, just because he may not be spending time writing on this website, doesn’t mean he hasn’t tried to bring the other side of this issue to light in other ways. Furthermore, knowing him personally, he has had a lot of real world experience (probably more than you), which is why he feels the way he does. Before you judge him & proclaim what he’s NOT doing, educate yourself on what he has done—and just because he doesn’t agree with your viewpoints, doesn’t make him the bigot you’re trying to paint him as. In fact, the openness you act like you share for everyone is a big joke; you’re only open to people who agree with exactly what you believe. So Sean didn’t sign onto a policy with which he disagrees—so what? He’s sticking to his conscience & isn’t being swayed by bullies like you who call him smug for sticking to his guns. Can you name a time when he was less than respectful to an LGBT student as a person, when he insulted their lifestyle, criticized them, or shunned them? He may not agree with their lifestyle, but that’s his perogative—just like you don’t agree with his beliefs, right? Or does that make you intolerant, too?Finally, as a BC grad & a practicing Catholic, the idea of a sheltered Jesuit institution is a joke. I’ve been all over & just about the most Catholic bashing that takes place is within the doors of those schools. I’ve never had to defend my faith more than when I was a student at BC. The real world is actually a breath of fresh air compared to a place like BC Law.
As someone who disagrees w/Sean’s views, I’d say give him a break. If he doesn’t agree with changing the non-discrimination policy at BCLS I think walking away from a petition for it is a reasonable thing to do. Would you rather he have spat in your face and ripped up the paper?As far as BC being one of the most conservative top-tier law schools, maybe I just haven’t taken any of the right faculty for that. Bloom, Madoff, any of the clinical teachers….none of them seem too right-wing.
Really, a personal attack on Sean Collier? Just because he had the balls to sign his real name or because you have opposing view point? Having known him 2+ years, I am sure there is a lot we disagree on but that has never hampered his good manners. You’re talking about a kid who always gives up his seat, would carry your books and yes, politely refuse to sign a petition he didn’t believe in. Ans yes, this is a Catholic law school. One you applied to and voluntarily attend. Maybe you can get Sean to teach you some his good Catholic manners before you both leave.
I have to echo what Robert S. said – I did my undergrad at a secular Ivy League university (the Ivy League part obviously isn’t relevant but I include it only for context) and I found the campus to be much more open to different viewpoints and truly "tolerant" than what I’ve seen thus far at BC Law.
I am certainly not attacking Sean for his unwillingness to sign a petition or agree with adding gender identity or expression to the non-discrimination policy solely because of that. What I was attacking was the look on his face when he was asked to sign it before he walked away. I certainly respect that people have personal views on this and other LGBT issues, but there was no politely walking away as others here have said. I’ll take his word that he certainly didn’t intend to convey any particular unwelcoming attitude, but that isn’t how it came across. Which is the point. You may think because you don’t spit in someone’s face or rip up a petition that that makes you welcoming, but you’d be wrong. There’s a general attitude and demeanor that maybe is more subconscious than anything, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t visible. It was honestly my first interaction with a visibly unwelcoming attitude towards diversity and equality and even, a year later, it is exactly what I think of when I see Sean.That said I will certainly take everyone’s word that he’s a polite person — and I certainly would never have held it against him. But seeing him comment on here about how the LGBT and those who support them are being unwelcoming, I couldn’t help but revisit the incident and point out that some people who think they are welcoming aren’t. The reason most ivy league places are probably more accepting is because there isn’t the overarching Catholic dogma hanging over your head as there is at BC. Who knows. While anyone non-Catholic here certainly knows they were coming to a Jesuit school, they also thought they were coming to a top law school where at best, they wouldn’t have to "deal" with anything they wouldn’t have to "deal" with at any other top law school. Maybe some of us were wrong. (Which is exactly why I suppose so many liberal, non-Catholic people are up in arms over Fitzgibbon at the moment since many of us don’t find what he did befitting a professor at what we like to think of as a top law school).
wow, Anon – methinks that YOU are the one who needs to gain some experience in the real world. As for what actually went down at Petition-gate, I don’t know, I wasn’t there, but before you forewarn Sean of the perils of leaving the "shelter of the Jesuit educational system" maybe you should re-examine your own life experiences – you claim that Sean’s "smug smile" was the first time you had ever had an interaction with a visibly unwelcoming attitude towards diversity and equality. Really? If that’s actually the truth, then good luck honey, you’re going to need it outside the liberal haven that is BC Law. And yes, this school is overwhelmingly liberal.
I meant to say it was the first experience at BC Law. Not ever. I wish I could say it was the first time ever. Sadly there are a lot of people who are far less welcoming out there. I think BC Law is liberal. I think it is conservative for a professional school. And you are right, the world is far less tolerant than BC Law, no doubt. I expected BC Law to be fairly liberal when I came here — which is probably why I’ve been surprised at how many seemingly bright people can actually argue they are welcoming to LGBT but think it’s perfectly acceptable for BC Law to have a policy that allows them to refuse to hire or fire professors or refuse to admit students because they are transgendered. And while sexual orientation is included (as is required), I’m fairly certain the same people would likely think the school is okay to hire/fire for that reason as well. If you think that is welcoming, I think you’re crazy.Trust me – my life experiences have shown me what welcoming and what not welcoming behavior is enough to know both when I see it. Maybe you shouldn’t so quick to defend bigotry because someone uses their faith to excuse it.
F.Y.I.- http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004735
Thank you Nancy for that timely article. In five years I will let you know what I think about this issue now. Until then, carry on.
No need to wait for five years as The Truth Has not changed since the beginning of Time. F.Y.I.-http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2009/10/marriage.htmlThis site is also a great source of information for anyone attending a University that professes to be Catholic, to begin with.
Again, Anon, you need to get a thicker skin. Not everyone is going to agree with you or smile at everything you say. OMG—so you saw a "smug" smirk on Sean’s face? That’s your opinion, so who’s to say that what you saw wasn’t misinterpreted simply because of your own insecurities or biases against those who disagree with your viewpoints? And funny how you can get away with calling people bigots based on YOUR beliefs (or lack thereof). Apparently, the scale of equality doesn’t apply to you, as you have put yourself in charge of whose beliefs should count and are right & whose should be labeled as bigoted because you consider them to be wrong. By the way, I’m wondering if you have ever had the nerve to find Sean, sit down with him & discuss why he believes in the things he does? Or is it easier to bash him on a website anonymously? I think you’d find that his arguments are very sound, logical & are full of objective truth. While you seem to let your opinions & passions guide you, Sean backs his arguments up with facts. I think that if you ever had the nerve to sit down with him, regardless of your differing views, you wouldn’t be so quick & careless as to label him a bigot (a word which is thrown around way too much).
See Robert, here’s the problem with your analysis. I do not care what Sean thinks. It does not bother me that Sean believes anything in particular about the legitimacy of non-discrimination policies for LGBT students/faculty. His smirk frankly doesn’t mean anything to me — it’s part and parcel of life that people are not going to support equality or freedom from discrimination based on certain attributes/characteristics. He is fully entitled to his opinion and I respect that he has that opinion. What I take issue with was his characterization of what is "welcoming" and what isn’t. He commented earlier about how LGBT supporters are the ones who aren’t "welcoming" to his views – he brought the issue up. All I was pointing to was that, in my admittedly limited experience, people shouldn’t throw stones. Especially if they are pretending to do so from a place of innocence when it comes to welcoming behavior. I’m sorry but the notion that his faith isn’t welcome at BC Law is ridiculous. It certainly is protected in our non-discrimination policy. It certainly isn’t something that is used as a basis to determine his legal rights when it comes to marriage. This feigned victim argument is ridiculous.As for the use of the word bigot…Robert, you were the one who used the word first. I never called Sean a bigot. Feel free to take a second, scroll back up and note that you are the one who first used the word. Not me. The only time I even came close to referring to bigotry was that I think people should not be quick to excuse it simply because people use their faith to defend it — and I stand by that. People used their faith to argue for slavery, for segregation laws based on race and miscegenation laws between people of different races. For years faith has been used as a defense to bigotry. In my view, it isn’t any different when its used that way regarding marriage and sexual orientation. I never called Sean a bigot and you should check yourself before you accuse me of doing it.My scale of equality applies to everyone. I have absolutely no desire to single Sean or anyone out for their faith. I don’t advocate employment or admissions procedures that take someone’s race, religious beliefs, gender, sexual orientation, etc etc. into account. I don’t advocate drawing those lines for marriage either. My scale of equality is just fine thank you. Again this feigned victim argument is ridiculous. I’m perfectly fine with you not liking someone because they are gay or thinking marriage is between a man and a woman – if you think homosexuality is perverse or immoral, that is your business. But don’t advocate for rules and laws that impact people outside of your religion and then cry victim when someone tells you that you’re not being welcoming to people who LGBT. That’s ridiculous.