Seidemann Shows How CUNY Supports NYPIRG's Fraud

David Seidemann, who is in the geology department of Brooklyn College,  has written an excellent article in City Journal about how insiders at the City University of New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo, and the New York Times collude to enable NYPIRG to defraud New York State's students.

Seidemann says that NYPIRG raises more student funding than any other student group and uses student funding for purposes completely unrelated to CUNY.  When questioned, CUNY officials linked to NYPIRG have resisted investigating the corruption.  NYPIRG's funding at Brooklyn College is now double the student senate's. As well, NYPIRG suppresses dissent on campus.

Seidemann gives this example of NYPIRG-related fraud at CUNY:

When 58 CUNY scientists accused NYPIRG of committing research misconduct, the university appointed a founding member of NYPIRG—now a CUNY vice chancellor—to look into the matter. Predictably, CUNY declined to investigate further, falsely claiming that the research in question had not taken place on campus.

Seidemann outlines how similar abuses have occurred around the country.  

As I have argued, Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits education institutes from engaging in political lobbying or ideological advocacy, but here we have colleges funneling student activities money into direct political uses that are unrelated to student activities. Not only does this seem to warrant an IRS investigation, but the parties involved should be investigated for fraud.

Professional Staff Congress: a Left-wing Tax Scam

She thinks she's Che Guevara

In Harris v. Quinn, decided last week, the Supreme Court suggested that coercing public sector employees who prefer not to join a union into paying an agency fee may violate the First Amendment.  Agency fees are charged to those who prefer not to join a union, and they usually equal the dues less the amount the union spends on unrelated political activity.  Other forms of union security arrangements are the open shop, the union shop, and the closed shop. The open shop gives employees the freedom to neither join nor pay dues. The union shop coerces employees into joining after they are hired. The closed shop coerces employees into joining before they are hired, and it coerces employers into hiring union members.

The rationale for the agency fee is that nonmember employees benefit from the union's collective bargaining, and were they not to pay an amount equal to the dues, they would be free riders.  In the 1977 case that has governed agency fee arrangements, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court held that agency fees are legal, but the union must be willing to refund the proportion of dues spent on political lobbying unrelated to bargaining activities.  The reason is that violently coercing nonmembers to support lobbying with which they don't agree violates their freedom of speech. 

But what if a union spends little time on collective bargaining and other workplace-related activities so that all dues either are for unrelated lobbying or are otherwise unrelated to improving working conditions?  That has to be the case with the CUNY faculty union, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC),  because it contributes nothing to my wages.  I earn less than I would in a nonunion environment.  Hence, the Abood claim that I would be a free rider were I to not join my union is nonsensical. 

In the recent Harris v. Quinn case, the court has raised the question as to whether agency fees can ever not involve violations of agency fee payers' First Amendment free speech rights.  The reasons are manifold:  It is difficult to extricate political from other activities; unions lie about how much they spend on politics; ultimately, all public sector union activity may be political.

In the case of Seidemann v. Bowen  (also here) decided in 2009, Brooklyn College geology professor David Seidemann sued to determine the actual amount of  dues that the PSC spends on political activity.  The union repeatedly lied about the amount; initially, they claimed less than one percent, yet the case was settled at a point at which Seidemann and his pro bono Jones Day attorney had determined that they spend 14%.  Seidemann believes that the true amount is closer to 20%, but the cost of further pursuing the case has been prohibitive. Part of the settlement was that the union paid $250,000 in legal fees to Jones Day. Few foundations can afford that kind of money for a venture with an ambiguous outcome.

As left-wing extremists led by President Barbara Bowen, an authoritarian, left-wing kook who thinks she's Che Guevara, the union leadership thinks little about using government-enforced violence to coerce dues money from faculty who do not agree with them.  They have repeatedly refused to represent faculty with whom they disagree, and they chiefly support the left-wing Working Families Party, a simple-minded band of economic illiterates who favor failed, reactionary, big-government solutions.  In choosing to openly affiliate itself with and pay the lion's share of campaign contributions to a third party, the PSC has ensured that conservative Democrats and Republicans will have little interest in supporting its cause.

The union serves as a conduit of tax-favored money from the taxpayers to the fringe left.  Public money is budgeted to CUNY and used for faculty salaries; as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization CUNY pays no taxes; faculty dues are collected on a tax-deductible basis; the union does not pay taxes, and as a 501(c)(5) tax-exempt organization, it donates the dues tax free to the Working Families Party, likely claiming that all of the issues it lobbies about are related to its purpose, which is what 501(c)(5) requires. That, of course, is nonsense.   

The June 19, 2014 minutes of the Delegates Assembly of the Professional Staff Congress states that the assembly resolved that the ROTC should not be institutionalized at CUNY. It spent much of its time discussing how situations in which it, and the American Federation of Teachers, to whom it contributes, should coordinate situations in which the two organizations make donations to different candidates.  It also passed a resolution favoring restitution of pensions to Detroit municipal employees.  It also developed a foreign policy.  Its resolution says this:

Resolved, the AFT concur with the AFL-CIO National Executive Committee, which declared in August 2011: 'The miliatarization of our foreign policy has proven to be a costly mistake. It is time to invest at home,' and that the AFT call for funds freed by reductions in military and national security spending to be reallocated to many urgent human needs; and

Resolved, that the AFT call for US foreign policy regarding international conflicts to be guided by strategies that prioritize the needs of working people everywhere and the use of negotiation and diplomatic means over military deployment, whether in Syria, Ukraine, Iran, Pakistan, or other 'hot-spots' as they may emerge...

In addition, it passed resolutions concerning the legacy of slavery, the Mayday$5K national movement for slavery, and Coca Cola's abuse of children and violation of human rights. Coca Cola's exploits overseas are indubitably within the purpose of a New York faculty union. Obama says so, for why should the PSC pay taxes if Tony Rezko and Timothy Geithner didn't?

In addition, about 5% of the minutes describe a collective bargaining update in which Bowen describes two contract settlements at the UFT and TWU.  The minutes do not explain why CUNY has not drawn up a contract with its faculty since 2007, nor do I sense from the minutes that they  care.

The question the Supreme Court should have raised and didn't is whether public sector unions serve as scams to avoid income taxes on contributions to left-wing Democrats, the Working Families Party, and other left-wing causes.  

CUNY Overlooks Ideological Discrimination.

I cross posted this on the NAS Blog:

The City of University of New York is conducting a survey concerning discrimination with respect to protected classes under the Civil Rights Act and sexual orientation. I sent an e-mail to the individual in charge of the survey. The e-mail says in part:

In my opinion you omitted a greater source of unfair discrimination than any that you covered, albeit one that is not covered under the Civil Rights Act: discrimination on the basis of ideology. Ideological discrimination has effects that are similar to the discrimination that you cover. Better candidates are excluded. Students receive only one point of view, attenuating their education. Promotion decisions are made on the basis of ideology rather than ability. By discriminating against a large segment of New York’s population CUNY puts itself at odds with that segment.

I urge CUNY to investigate the extent and scope of ideological discrimination in faculty personnel decision making.

I was delighted that the affirmative action attorney who is conducting the survey (who used to work at Brooklyn College and now is in the central CUNY office)wrote:

Hello,

I hope all is well at Brooklyn.  Thanks for taking the survey and I appreciate your feedback.  This very issue was raised today in a meeting when we discussed how to define "diversity."

Best,

Jennifer

Opportunity in the Kushner Controversy: CUNY Should End Honorary Degrees

Currently, there is a controversy concerning City University of New York (CUNY) Trustee Jeffrey Wiesenfeld's objections to John Jay College's proposal to grant an honorary degree to playwright Tony Kushner. The Guardian's New York correspondent Paul Harris reports that Kushner, author of Angels in America,  was turned down by CUNY's board of trustees after Wiesenfeld posed objections  because of Kushner's outspoken anti-Israel views.  The Guardian reports that Barbara Ehrenreich has issued a public statement that she is renouncing her 2004 honorary degree. Kushner wrote an open letter to the board, copied below (h/t Sharad Karkhanis).

I do not see the board of trustees' decision to reject or accept Kushner as a freedom of speech issue. First, speech is not free in universities. Conservative scholars have been excluded from academic posts.  Second, Kushner is not an academic, has no relationship to CUNY, and CUNY has no obligation to grant him a degree. Third, neither Kushner nor the faculty committee that proposed Kushner have had their"freedom of thought" impeded, as CUNY's comically far-left union president Barbara Bowen claims. Granting an honorary degree involves an approval process that includes the board of trustees, and the board rejected Kushner. It is not clear, as CUNY Board Chairman Benno Schmidt has argued, that honorary degrees are granted solely because of an author's work. Unlike tenure and promotion criteria, there is no history of AAUP policy statements and standards concerning honorary degrees.  Much as when, in 1977 and 1978, the Jews of Skokie, Illlinois objected to the Nazis' marching in front of their homes, so might some Jews object to Kushner's degree.  One can argue for or against granting such a degree.  In any case, CUNY has hardly been balanced in granting honorary degrees to conservatives; to claim at this late hour that there is an some kind of objective  standard involved is far fetched.

However, on realpolitik grounds, and as a friend, I urge Wiesenfeld to reconsider his stand because the incident has generated negative publicity for CUNY.

On the other hand, there is positive fallout from the incident. I am delighted that Barbara Ehrenreich has returned her honorary degree.  When CUNY granted it to her 2004 I was stunned that CUNY had chosen to honor a low quality ideologue like her.  I thought then that CUNY might reconsider its granting honorary degrees outside the hard sciences and technology.

The quality of American social sciences, arts and letters have sunk to such a degree that honorary degrees will inevitably honor mediocrity, as they do in the case of Tony Kushner. Kushner's Angels in America fails a basic test of literary quality: it is a trite bore.

The truth of the matter is that great writers,  like Dickinson and Blake, are often ignored in their own era. It is pointless to give honorary degrees to writers who have yet to stand the test of time.  In his Groats-worth of Wit, Robert Greene, who represented the literary establishment, attacked Shakespeare early on as a Johannes factotum, a dilettante.

Starting with Socrates,  there is a long tradition of the greatest minds having been rejected by the political establishment, including university administrations. David Hume's application for a chair in philosophy at the University of Edinburgh was turned down in 1744. Elton Mayo, the founder of the human relations school of management and experimental social psychology, had an uneasy relationship with the faculty at the University of Adelaide, which caused him to move to the United States, where he was unemployed for an extended period.


CUNY's history of granting honorary degrees is one of  ideological skewness toward the left. Its honorary degree program is an affirmative action plan for second tier, left wing ideologues, the 21st century's equivalents of Robert Greene. I doubt that Roger Kimball,  David Horowitz, or Theodore Dalrymple would be considered. Universities are vain to presume that they are capable of awarding honorary degrees fairly. 

Tony Kushner writes:

Tony Kushner
c/o Heat & Light Co., Inc.
119 West 72nd Street #193
New York, NY 10023
The Board of Trustees of the City University of New York
535 East 80th Street
New York, NY 10075

cc: President Jeremy Travis
The faculty and students of John Jay College of Criminal Justice
899 Tenth Avenue New York, NY, 10019
May 4, 2011

To Chairperson Benno Schmidt and the Board of Trustees:

At the May 2 public meeting of the CUNY Board of Trustees, which was
broadcast on CUNY television and radio, Trustee Jeffrey S. Weisenfeld delivered a
grotesque caricature of my political beliefs regarding the state of Israel, concocted out of
three carefully cropped, contextless quotes taken from interviews I’ve given, the mention
of my name on the blog of someone with whom I have no connection whatsoever, and
the fact that I serve on the advisory board of a political organization with which Mr.
Weisenfeld strongly disagrees. As far as I’m able to conclude from the podcast of this
meeting, Mr. Weisenfeld spoke for about four minutes, the first half of which was a
devoted to a recounting of the politics of former President of Ireland and UN Human
Rights High Commissioner Mary Robinson that was as false as his description of mine.
Ms. Robinson, however, was not on public trial; I was, apparently, and at the
conclusion of Mr. Weisenfeld’s vicious attack on me, eight members voted to approve all
the honorary degree candidates, including me, and four voted to oppose the slate if my
name remained on it. Lacking the requisite nine votes to approve the entire slate, the
Board, in what sounds on the podcast like a scramble to dispense with the whole
business, tabled my nomination, approved the other candidates, and adjourned. Not a
word was spoken in my defense.

I wasn’t told in advance that my willingness to accept an honorary doctorate from
John Jay would require my presence at a meeting to defend myself. As far as I know, no
one who might have spoken on my behalf was notified in advance. I’m not a difficult
person to find, nor am I lacking in articulate colleagues and friends who would have
responded. For all his posturing as a street-tough scrapper for causes he believes in, Mr.
Weisenfeld, like most bullies, prefers an unfair fight.

But far more dismaying than Mr. Weisenfeld’s diatribe is the silence of the other
eleven board members. Did any of you feel that your responsibilities as trustees of an
august institution of higher learning included even briefly discussing the appropriateness
of Mr. Weisenfeld’s using a public board meeting as a platform for deriding the political
opinions of someone with whom he disagrees? Did none of you feel any responsibility
towards me, whose name was before you, and hence available as a target for Mr.
Weisenfeld’s slander, entirely because I’d been nominated for an honor by the faculty
and administration of one of your colleges? I can’t adequately describe my dismay at the
fact that none of you felt stirred enough by ordinary fairness to demand of one of your
members that, if he was going to mount a vicious attack, he ought to adhere to standards
higher than those of internet gossip. Mr. Weisenfeld declared to you that, rather than turn
to “pro-Israel” websites, he’d gleaned his insights into my politics from the website of
Norman Finkelstein. I find it appalling that he failed to consider a third option:
familiarizing himself with any of the work I’ve done, my plays, screenplays, essays and
speeches, for which, I assume, the faculty and administration of John Jay nominated me
for an honor.

It would have taken very little effort to learn that my politics regarding the state of
Israel do not resemble Mr. Weisenfeld’s account. I don’t intend to mount a full defense of
myself or my opinions in this letter, an effort on my part which an honorary degree ought
not to require. But I can’t allow myself to be publicly defamed without responding:

- My questions and reservations regarding the founding of the state of Israel are
connected to my conviction, drawn from my reading of American history, that
democratic government must be free of ethnic or religious affiliation, and that the
solution to the problems of oppressed minorities are to be found in pluralist
democracy and in legal instruments like the 14th Amendment; these solutions are,
like all solutions, imperfect, but they seem to me more rational, and have had a far
better record of success in terms of minorities being protected from majoritarian
tyranny, than have national or tribal solutions. I am very proud of being Jewish,
and discussing this issue publicly has been hard; but I believe in the absolute good
of public debate, and I feel that silence on the part of Jews who have questions is
injurious to the life of the Jewish people. My opinion about the wisdom of the
creation of a Jewish state has never been expressed in any form without a strong
statement of support for Israel’s right to exist, and my ardent wish that it continue
to do so, something Mr. Weisenfeld conveniently left out of his remarks.

- I believe that the historical record shows, incontrovertibly, that the forced
removal of Palestinians from their homes as part of the creation of the state of
Israel was ethnic cleansing, a conclusion I reached mainly by reading the work of
Benny Morris, an acclaimed and conservative Israeli historian whose political
opinions are much more in accord with Mr. Weisenfeld’s than with mine; Mr.
Morris differs from Mr. Weisenfeld in bringing to his examination of history a
scholar’s rigor, integrity, seriousness of purpose and commitment to telling the
truth.

- I won’t enter into arguments about Israeli policy towards the Palestinian people
since 1948, about the security fence or the conduct of the IDF, except to say that
my feelings and opinions – my outrage, my grief, my terror, my moments of
despair - regarding the ongoing horror in the middle east, the brunt of which has
been born by the Palestinian people, but which has also cost Israelis dearly and
which endangers their existence, are shared by many Jews, in Israel, in the US
and around the world. My despair is kept in check by my ongoing belief in and
commitment to a negotiated conclusion to the Palestinian-Israeli crisis.

- I have never supported a boycott of the state of Israel. I don’t believe it will
accomplish anything positive in terms of resolving the crisis. I believe that the
call for a boycott is predicated on an equation of this crisis with other situations,
contemporary and historical, that is fundamentally false, the consequence of a
failure of political understanding of a full and compassionate engagement with
Jewish history and Jewish existence.

- I am on the advisory board of Jewish Voice for Peace, and have remained there
even though I disagree with the organization about a number of issues, including
the boycott. I remain affiliated because the women and men of JVP are
courageous, committed people who work very hard serving the interests of peace
and justice and the Jewish people, and I’m honored by my association with them.
I have a capacity Mr. Weisenfeld lacks, namely the ability to tolerate and even
value disagreement. Furthermore, resigning from the advisory board of JVP, or
any organization, to escape the noisy censure of likes of Mr. Weisenfeld is
repellent to me.

- Mr. Weisenfeld attempts to cast me as a marginal extremist, a familiar tactic on
this particular issue. It’s a matter of public record that this is not the case. I’m coeditor
of a volume of essays on the crisis in the middle east, which includes
among its 58 contributing authors many rabbis, two US Poet Laureates and two
recipients of the Jerusalem Prize. I’ve had a long and happy affiliation with such
organizations as the 92nd Street Y, The Jewish Museum and the Upper West Side
JCC. My work has been recognized by such groups as The National Foundation
for Jewish Culture, The Shofar Center, The Central Synagogue and Brandeis
University (one of fifteen honorary degrees I’ve received). I state this not to
present credentials, but because I refuse to allow Mr. Weisenfeld or any other
self-appointed spokesman/guardian to diminish the depth or meaningfulness of
my connection to the Jewish community.

I accepted the kind offer of a degree from John Jay College not because I need
another award, but because I was impressed with the students and teachers there – as I
have always been impressed with CUNY teachers and students - and I wanted to
participate in celebrating their accomplishment. I did not expect to be publicly defamed
as a result, and I believe I am owed an apology for the careless way in which my name
and reputation were handled at your meeting.

I decided long ago that my job as a playwright is to try to speak and write
honestly about what I believe to be true. I am interested in history and politics, and long
ago I realized that people uninterested in a meaningful exchange of opinion and ideas
would selectively appropriate my words to suit their purposes. It’s been my experience
that truth eventually triumphs over soundbites, spin and defamation, and that reason,
honest inquiry, and courage, which are more appealing and more persuasive than
demagoguery, will carry the day.

Sincerely,
Tony Kushner

You're Hired/You're Fired

Sharad Karkhanis received a number of e-mails from CUNY faculty and staff concerning my essay concerning the Petersen-Overton/Dov Hikind controversy at CUNY. The firing received mass market newspaper coverage.  Sharad asked me to respond to a handful of the criticisms in a special issue of his newsletter, which goes to about 13,000 faculty and staff.   I reproduce the issue below.  Sharad is working on another issue that will focus on another article I am writing concerning the failure of the current leadership of one of the nation's largest faculty unions, CUNY's Professional Staff Congress, which is run by left wing extremists.

THE
PATRIOT
RETURNS

   Vol. 54, No.2                                                          February 17, 2011

 

CUNY Faculty Speak Out
You're HIRED/You're FIRED/You're HIRED
PETERSEN-OVERTON FIASCO AT BROOKLYN COLLEGE

 

As in the past, the Editor of The Patriot Returns has received a number of responses from its readers to an article by Prof Mitchell Langbert in the recent TPR (54.1) We are providing to you a small sample with the author's responses to these comments. 

Letters to the editor:

1) FACULTY COMMENT: Pretty impressive that someone can write an article about this case without once mentioning the role of Dov Hikind. The Times wasn't able to neglect Hikind's central role in the affair, but Professor Langbert does. Of course, mentioning Hikind, the former discipline of Meir Kahane and the Jewish Defense League, would have revealed that dismissing Petersen-Overton had far more to do with politics than academic credentials.

2) FACULTY COMMENT: You interestingly make no mention of the Dov Hikind letter which lead to Petersen-Overton action. If you seek to use cause and effect to characterize personnel decisions then you need to be honest. An investigation of what impact the Hikind letter had and who at CUNY responded to it would tell us a lot. Was this merely a personnel matter or did ideology have something to do with it?

AUTHOR'S REPLY: I reference three news accounts of the story that provide information about Assemblyman Hikind's letter. I also state that the administrators stated that they had made up their minds prior to hearing of Petersen-Overton's political views, that there are two sides to the story, and that the facts are not fully known. You are right that Assemblyman Hikind wrote a letter to the administration, as is described in the news accounts and in PSC President Bowen's letter, to which my piece is a response. Note that the above two respondents' point ought to be applied to President Bowen's letter, which contained no references to the statements of the Brooklyn College administration. I wonder if the writers raised the reverse question concerning President Bowen's letter. As well, the first letter above echoes President Bowen's shrill name calling and adds a whiff of anti-Semitism.

3) FACULTY COMMENT: We would be happy to hear the facts in this strange firing/rehiring case, but unfortunately with you also they seem to be mainly about pro-Israel/anti-Israel, which, if it is the base of this, is really embarrassing for both sides. That consideration should not have a place in an academic hiring decision, unless we believe that the liberal arts are just group politics, in which case they don't belong at a university anyway.

Since my promotion was also denied in my first attempt, I wonder if, according to your description, I should have claimed to be discriminated against and taken a lawyer. I did not do that because a colleague did that a year before, and got her promotion that way against repeated department vote; such things do damage to the department. Outside interference is not good for department hiring practices.

AUTHOR'S REPLY: The politicization of the social sciences and humanities has become an impediment to their credibility. It is unfortunate that they are unlikely to reform themselves from within because of conformity processes akin to what Irving Janis has called groupthink. The social sciences and humanities insist that political advocacy is legitimate academic practice and then deny that they are politicized. Public respect for universities will diminish.

FOLLOING SELF-EXPLANATORY COMMENTS STAND ON THEIR OWN

1) FACULTY COMMENT: Whatever your position is in this case, I have a general question to both you, PSC and the BC Administration: Should colleagues with only an M.A. or with status of being in a doctoral program be teaching graduate courses? I believe that this issue needs to be addressed.

2) FACULTY COMMENT: I've been watching the scuffle on Petersen-Overton with interest and disgust. I'm a doctoral student at … also a graduate (many years ago) of …, and I'm dismayed at how easily my fellow doctoral students threw their support behind the idea of academic freedom and free speech without looking into whether this case is a fair representation of those ideas.

3) FACULTY COMMENT: I appreciate your statements in The Patriot Returns.

4) FACULTY COMMENT: Great post. Keep up your efforts to uncover the truth. 

5) FACULTY COMMENT: I learned a new word today--"gasconaded."

6) FACULTY COMMENT: Great piece

7) FACULTY COMMENT: I suggest that one thing that should be looked into I will ask that in the UFS is that Master's courses are taught by doctoral students. This is not good; if they cannot maintain the MS program with faculty, they should close the program.

 

Sharad Karkhanis, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Editor-in-Chief

Issues of The Patriot may be accessed at
http://www.patriotreturns.com
Archived editions are available at
http://www.patriotreturns.com/archive.htm

Kristofer Petersen-Overton Revisited

Sharad Karkhanis's Patriot Returns,  which goes to 13,000 CUNY faculty and staff, published a recast version of my piece on the Kristofer Peterson-Overton matter that was covered in  The New York Post, New York Daily News, New York Times, and Inside Higher Education.  Brooklyn College's president, Karen Gould, decided to hire Petersen-Overton after the administration initially rescinded his contract.

Several of Karkhanis's associates and I made a few changes to my original piece to address President Gould's decision, which was of course politically important to her. My piece appears here.

THE
PATRIOT
RETURNS

   Vol. 54, No.1                                                          February 02, 2011

Freedom and Standards at CUNY: The Case of Kristofer Petersen-Overton

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, School of Business, Brooklyn College.

The Professional Staff Congress's (PSC's) president, Barbara Bowen, aimed to use the rescission of Kristofer Petersen-Overton's contract to bait Brooklyn College's and CUNY's administration and for partisan jockeying. Based on the Monday evening announcement from Brooklyn president Karen Gould, the Brooklyn College administration displayed astounding weakness in the face of faculty bullying.  Now, people of academic goodwill should press to uncover facts that would contribute to understanding the events that preceded the original appointment to improve hiring and personnel practices at Brooklyn College and at CUNY.

The New York Times, Inside Higher Education, and The New York Post  covered the Petersen-Overton case. There are two sides, but the facts are scrimpy. The administration stated that before hearing Petersen-Overton's political views they had determined that he was not yet qualified to teach--only to reverse their position, for reasons unknown, a few days later. Mr. Petersen-Overton and his supporters stated that the contract rescission reflected an incursion on his academic freedom. Rejecting the possibility of any alternative to the second explanation, President Bowen condemned Petersen-Overton's short-lived firing as "meddling in academic decisions" and, gasconaded that "the union will defend the rights of our members if their rights have been violated."

Bowen's claim is not fact. In the case of Professor Robert Johnson several years ago, Professor Johnson had uttered pro-Israel statements (in contrast to Mr. Petersen-Overton's anti-Israel position) and found his promotion bid denied. Rather than defend Dr. Johnson, as it is the union's fiduciary duty to do, Bowen and other union officials, such as then-UFS chair and New Caucus executive committee member Susan O'Malley, publicly attacked him. In that case Bowen failed to live up to a minimal legal duty, the avoidance of partisanship in defending faculty rights, and Dr. Johnson was forced to hire an attorney to successfully defend himself.

Now, defending Mr. Petersen-Overton's left wing anti-Zionism, Bowen claims that her support for free speech is unqualified. This shift is consistent with a pattern whereby the PSC's leadership aims to represent those who are politically correct and to squelch those who are not.

There are a number of questions that need to be asked before anyone can conclude much about Overton's firing. Does Brooklyn College generally hire doctoral students to teach master's students? If so, do the favored doctoral students consistently adhere to left-wing ideology? Is there bi-partisanship in offering adjunct positions to doctoral students, or is the ratio of Democrats to Republicans 100-0? Have CUNY and Brooklyn College established best practice guidelines for the hiring of adjuncts?

Conrad, Haworth and Millar (1993), in a book on master's degree programs, note that non-academic adjuncts play a crucial role in supplying practical experience that supplements theory. Many master's students in political science aim for careers in diplomacy or government. Does Mr. Petersen-Overton supply such experience? Or is he a shill for ideologically committed advisors and their cronies in the PSC? Does the political science department ever offer adjunct teaching posts to doctoral students who agree with Bernard Lewis (2001), or is the ideological tenor monotone, the drumbeat repetitive, and the harp played only with the left hand?

References

Conrad, CP, Haworth , JG, Millar, SB. A Silent Success: Master's Education in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

Lewis, B. The Muslim Discovery of Europe. New York: WW Norton & Co. 2001.

 

Sharad Karkhanis, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Editor-in-Chief

Issues of The Patriot may be accessed at
http://www.patriotreturns.com
Archived editions are available at
http://www.patriotreturns.com/archive.htm

My Piece Too Politically Incorrect for Karkhanis's Patriot Returns

My good friend Sharad Karkhanis publishes a newsletter that goes to about 13,000 City University of New York faculty and employees called Patriot Returns. To give you an idea as to how controversial Patriot Returns is, Sharad just settled a multi-year libel suit by one of the union officers whom he had ruthlessly satirized for years.  Sharad has asked me to write for him a number of times, most recently concerning David Seidemann's law suit against the faculty union and concerning the Charles Rangel Center at the City University of New York (forthcoming). 

But even Patriot Returns is too tame for some of my stuff.    I had submitted a piece to him concerning an article in the faculty union's newsletter, the Clarion.  Karkhanis told me that it is simply too controversial even for Patriot Returns.  The New Caucus is the extreme left-wing "party" that runs the CUNY faculty union. I suppose my claim that the CUNY faculty is more racist than the membership of the Tea Party is simply too hot for anyone in academia to handle, even though it is true.

 New Caucus Racism

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D. *

Recently, William Tabb, professor emeritus of Queens College, made accusations of racism against the so-called Tea Party in the pages of the Clarion, the newsletter of the CUNY faculty union.  In fact, the Tea Party is a highly decentralized and diverse group that is scattered across thousands of locales around the country. Racism may exist in some locales, just as racism may exist in some quarters of CUNY.   I have attended eight meetings of the Kingston/Rhinebeck Tea Party near my home town as well as one or two in my home town of Olive, New York.  I did not detect a single instance of racism.  There is more racism on the CUNY faculty than in the Kingston/Rhinebeck Tea Party.  I very much doubt that Professor Tabb or the NAACP have done any research as to whether there is actual racism.  I am a former contributer to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which made similar kinds of irresponsible allegations. I voiced my concerns to Morris Dees, the founder, directly, and have ceased any involvement with that organization.  

Competent academic research poses hypotheses and then attempts to falsify them through evidence.  Professor Tabb offers no evidence. Rather, he asserts unfounded, lynch-mob style accusations.  This disturbs me.  Professor Tabb is a distinguished professor from Queens College.  If his standards are so low as to make wild, ungrounded accusations about Tea Party racism one must wonder about standards among the New Caucus in general.

 In response to Professor Tabb's allegations of racism, I did an informal survey of the Professional Staff Congress's representation of various minorities.  I counted the number of African-Americans, Native Americans, Mexicans, Asians and South Americans in its leadership group.  My finding is that the proportion of minorities who are officers of the Professional Staff Congress is lower than the proportion of minority group members who have have attended the Kingston/Rhinebeck Tea Party.  In other words, the evidence is that Barbara Bowen, Steve London and the rest of the New Caucus are MORE RACIST THAN THE TEA PARTY.

My affirmative action plan is straightforward. The CUNY faculty needs to replace PSC's president, Barabara Bowen.

*Mitchell Langbert is associate professor of business at Brooklyn College. He blogs at http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com.

My Letter in the Chronicle of Higher Education

The Chronicle of Higher Education printed my letter concerning David Seidemann's case here:

To the Editor:

The remarks of union officials quoted in "Federal Judge Rules Against Faculty Union on Refunds of Nonmembers' Dues" (The Chronicle, April 25) are misleading. There have been considerable "soft" activities by the leadership of the faculty union at the City University of New York involving protests, demonstrations, and conferences about the war in Iraq. The leadership is paid salaries to represent the faculty, but much of the leaders' time has been spent in antiwar and other political protests.

To be fair, agency dues payments should be reduced by the proportion that salaries for the union leadership's time spent on unrelated political activities bears to the union's total budget.

The article quotes Christopher M. Callagy, a union attorney, as saying that the union's chief political efforts have been in Albany. The union leadership has many times notified faculty members about antiwar protests via CUNY's e-mail system and used union officials' time and union resources for such protests, conferences, and related activities.

Professor David E. Seidemann's case does not go far enough. Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association, on which Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom relies in Seidemann v. Bowen, anticipates that agency payers may be free riders because they receive the benefit of collective bargaining but would not contribute to the costs of negotiation if they did not pay dues. But the Professional Staff Congress has won no benefits for its membership. Rather, because of its adversarial approach, it has managed to diminish faculty wages and benefits relative to virtually every other New York union.

Mitchell Langbert
Associate Professor of Business, Management, and Finance
Brooklyn College
City University of New York
Brooklyn, N.Y.

Orenstein Reports Sighting of CUNY Faculty Meeting

Phil Orenstein has written an excellent article in Frontpagemag about his close encounter with a handful of fringe CUNY faculty. Professional Staff Congress officer "Sue" O'Malley, currently engaged in a McCarthyist law suit against the awe-inspiring Sharad Karkhanis, was in attendance. Orenstein does not mention whether the panelists were wearing white hoods and sheets. But he writes of this close encounter of the fourth kind:

"What I witnessed was a closed forum dedicated to a veiled radical agenda, riddled by hysterical paranoia, name-calling, slanderous accusations against prominent scholars and city officials, and strategies for their ouster, where the panelists professed that “attacks” against Arabs and professors are a coordinated right wing smear campaign launched by Daniel Pipes, CUNY trustee Jeffrey Wiesenfeld and their ilk, which they dubbed the “New McCarthyism.”

Read all about Orenstein's encounter with uncollegiality among extremist elements of CUNY's senior faculty here.

Ratio of Democrat to Republican Donors at Brooklyn College

Huffington Post lists political donors by employer. The information is publicly available on the World Wide Web. I am not breaching confidentiality by copying the data.

The folks at the American Association of University Professors keep claiming that there is no imbalance between Democrats and Republicans in universities. They claim that the professoriate represents a balanced range of views. That is of course absurd.

The top of the Huffington Brooklyn College list states:

$16,093 was given by people who identified their employer as "Brooklyn College".
$0 to Republicans
$16,093 from 25 people to Democrats

The summary states that it all went to Democrats. However, that is inaccurate, as there is one Republican donor on the list. Me. If you look down the list you will see that I gave $540 to John McCain. I am the only Republican donor on the list. With 25 on the list, the politically interested faculty appears to be 4% Republican and 96% Democratic.

Moreover, the amounts contributed to the Democratic Party are surprisingly large. For example, Professor Leo Zanderer donated $4,600 to Christopher Dodd. Professor Madelon Rand donated $1,950 to Hillary Clinton in the first quarter of 2008. Librarian Howard Spivak donated $1,000 to Hillary Clinton. Professor Barbara Winsolow gave $2,000 to Howard Dean.

My question, friends, is: why does the heading of the list say that there are no Republican donors at Brooklyn when it lists me as having given $540 to John McCain?

Brooklyn College Political Donations

Leo Zanderer Professor Brooklyn College Christopher Dodd $4,600
Madelon Rand English Instructor Brooklyn College Hillary Clinton $1,950
Howard Spivak Director, Academic Information,Brooklyn College Hillary Clinton $1,000
Gail Gurland Professor Brooklyn College Hillary Clinton $600
Mitchell Langbert ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR BROOKLYN COLLEGE John McCain $540
Philip Thibodeau Professor Brooklyn College Barack Obama $465
Ellen Wayne Professor Brooklyn College John Edwards $450
Renison Gonsalves Updated Q1/2008 Hillary Clinton $420
John Van Sickle Professor Q1/2008 Barack Obama $400
Donald M Levine Professor Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2008 Barack Obama $391
Lindley Hanlon Professor Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2008 Barack Obama $308
Michael Hipscher Teacher Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2008 John Edwards $300
Matthew Moore Professor Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2008 Barack Obama $300
Mac Wellman writer/professor Dennis Kucinich $300
Andrew Meyer Professor Brooklyn College Q1/2008 Barack Obama $272
Sonia Murrow College Professor Brooklyn College Q1/2008 Barack Obama $250
Barbara Winslow University professor Brooklyn College Howard Dean $2,000
Charlene Forest Professor Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2004 DNC $500
Joe Fodor writer Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2004 DNC $500
Ellen Wayne College Professor Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2004 DNC $450
Clement Mbom Professor Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2004 DNC $408
John Van Sickle Professor Brooklyn College Q1/2004 John Kerry $375
Kathleen Axen Professor Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2004 DNC $300
Matthew Moore Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2004 DNC $300
Peter Wayne College Professor Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2004 John Kerry $250
Len Fox college professor Brooklyn College Q1/2004 DNC $250
Todd Holden Professor of Physics Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2004 DNC $250
David Bloomfield Educator Brooklyn College Q1/2004 John Kerry $250
Roni Natov English Professor Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2004 DNC $250
Daniel Mufson Assistant Professor Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2004 Howard Dean $250
Steven Jervis Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2004 John Kerry $200
Corey Robin professor Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2004 Howard Dean $200
Charles Ayes Architect Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2004 John Kerry $200
Len Fox College Professor Brooklyn College Q1/2004 John Kerry $200
Frederick Gardiner Professor Brooklyn College Q1/2004 John Kerry $200
Mac Wellman Professor Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2004 Dennis Kucinich $200
Gary Giardina Physician Assistant Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2004 DNC $150
Daniel Mufson Assistant Professor Brooklyn College Updated Howard Dean $150
John Van Sickle Professor Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2004 Howard Dean $100
Allison Dean Professor Brooklyn College Updated Q1/2004 Howard Dean $60

PSC Fails to Protect Faculty--Javier Perez Calls For Barbara Bowen's Resignation

I received the following e-mail from Javier Perez, a former faculty member at Hostos Community College, a CUNY unit:

This is a letter from me, Javier Perez, a former LabvTech at Hostos Community College, inviting the Hostos Faculty Senate to investigate what amount to corruption allegations.

07 January 2008

Dear Senators

I am directing this letter to you, the members of the Hostos Faculty Senate. But I'm also sharing it with many of my former coworkers at Hostos and with other parties who might want or need to read it. Most of you have already read my call for the resignation of PSC-CUNY President Barbara Bowen. My position with respect to her remains unchanged, PSC-CUNY failed me miserably in many different ways and I'll take this opportunity to renew that call. But this letter relates to issues I have with Hostos Community College.

For some time I've been calling for someone or some entity at Hostos Community College to take up the task of conducting a thorough investigation of the allegations of abuse that I've made about the time I worked at the Hostos Academic Computing Center. I began by asking the college-wide P&B to investigate my
allegations. I did this three times....

Information is at: http://hostos.ultragone.net

O'Malley v. Karkhanis; Johnson v. Yousry

I have emailed the following inquiry to Susan O'Malley, a CUNY activist who is suing Sharad Karkhanis:

From: "Mitchell Langbert"
To: "Sue O'Malley"
Cc: "KC Johnson"
Subject: Karkhanis, Johnson and Yousry
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:17:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01C84BF2.87BF9E30"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198

Dear UFS Chair O'Malley:

Further to my earlier e-mails, I would like to respectfully ask you two additional questions for my blog. I hope you don't mind.

As I am reading through your complaint concerning Professor Karkhanis, I noticed the following statement:

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances and implications, UFS Chair Susan O'Malley's duties included representing all faculty of CUNY (including Yousry, who was then a member of the faculty) each of whom she believes are entitled to due process."

I am somewhat curious about the link between this point and your comments about Professor KC Johnson that were recorded several years ago. In particular, you were unsupportive of Professor Johnson's promotion bid at that time and publicly stated so.

Do you feel that you were remiss in your treatment of Professor Johnson? Or did you have a change of heart since then concerning your role in representing all faculty as chair of the UFS?

Second, do you feel that your treatment of Yousry was equivalent to your treatment of Johnson? The complaint about Johnson involved collegiality, and failing to represent him, you voiced concern about him, saying that it was a difficult question. In contrast, Yousry was convicted of terrorist-related activity.

Third I am curious as to the implications of this point for CUNY policy. The departmental chairs on rare occasion make frivolous decisions based on collegiality and other pretexts that are inconsistent with serious academic criteria. If you claim to represent all faculty how do you reconcile the representation of a chair who makes a frivolous decision and a capable junior faculty member who is terminated on the frivolous grounds?

Thanks for your help and clarification. I will blog your answer along with this inquiry.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

Addendum: KC Johnson just reminded me that in 2003 Erin O'Connor of Critical Mass called O'Malley's attacks on Johnson "libelous": O'Connor writes:

"For example, it is now acceptable at CUNY for top administrators to libel those junior faculty they seek to fire. Susan O'Malley, English professor at Kingsborough Community College, president of the CUNY University Faculty Senate, and ex oficio member of the Board of Trustees, published a statement on Johnson's case in the Senate Digest. Here is the text:

"'As the faculty member on the Board of Trustees, although without a vote, I first heard that the Board was being asked to vote on Professor Robert David Johnson's promotion and early tenure as the February 24, 2003 Board meeting was convening. A sheet of paper announcing an addendum to the University Report was placed at my seat. We were to vote on Professor Johnson's promotion to full professor effective 1/1/03 and his tenure effective 9/1/03. This action had not been presented to the Board Committee on Faculty, Staff, Administration for discussion and vote, nor had it been placed on the Board Calendar so that faculty could address it at the Board Public Hearing. The only discussion at the February Board of Trustees meeting consisted of a statement from Trustee Pesile that she had been trying to bring this matter to the Board's attention since October. However, Trustee Wiesenfeld had made known to the New York Sun his views supporting Professor Johnson.

"'Chancellor Goldstein recommended to the Board that it overturn the decision by the Brooklyn College faculty and the President of Brooklyn College. He said that after having received a complaint from Professor Johnson's attorney, he had given Professor Johnson's file to three professors who had distinguished records, and who had voted to promote Johnson to full professor after his having taught for three and one half years at Brooklyn College. The three professors who voted to promote Professor Johnson are Pamela Sheingorn, Professor of History at Baruch and Executive Officer of the Doctoral Program in Theater at the Graduate Center; David Reynolds, University Distinguished Professor of English at Baruch College; and Louis Masur, chair of the City College History Department.

"'It is not my place to judge Professor Johnson's scholarship. A historian, he has written several reputable monographs. However, although he has one other monograph in press, he has not published since his tenure clock started at Brooklyn College. He was scheduled to have another year at Brooklyn College before coming up for tenure. While I agree with the AAUP that collegiality, a reason cited in the. Johnson case, should not be the sole criterion for the denial of promotion, as I talk to Brooklyn College faculty I realize that this is an extremely complex case.
"What kind of message does this give to faculty coming up for promotion? That it is better for a faculty member who anticipates any difficulty to hire a private lawyer and ask the Chancellor to form his own committee to recommend promotion and tenure?.

[I note that that Professor Johnson's record at that point far exceeded the number of publications that Professor O'Malley pretended and that Professor O'Malley's statement at this very critical point in Johnson's career was utterly untrue and a defamatory lie. Given her reckless disregard for the truth in this matter, O'Malley should hang her head in perpetual shame rather than engage in litigation about her own flimsy career.]

"'As Chair of the University Faculty Senate and as one who is concerned with governance issues, I believe that the Chancellor's action does a disservice to shared governance at CUNY. On March 25, 2003, th UFS plenary voted to support a Resolution on the Integrity of the Promotion and Tenure Process which was written in response to the Chancellor's grant of early promotion and therefore tenure to Professor Johnson. Chancellor Goldstein's action overrode the decisions of the three committees at Brooklyn College involved with the promotion and tenure process, as well as the decision of the President of Brooklyn College. The UFS resolution "calls upon the Chancellor to affirm a policy of non-interference with established campus and university governance and contractual procedures, including appeals and grievances."

[Professor O'Malley, with respect to Professor Johnson, saw her role as defender of academic processes rather than representative of "all faculty of CUNY". It seems that Professor O'Malley carries a many-edged sword, none of the edges being particularly truthful.]

"'Cordially,

"'Susan G. O'Malley'"

Request for Updated Copy of Susan O'Malley's CV Sent on 12/31

From: "Mitchell Langbert"
To:
Subject: Copy of Your Curriculum Vita
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:13:27 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0020_01C84BBF.B22A1C00"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198



Dear Sue: May I have a copy of your curriculum vita to post publicly on my blog? Thanks,

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

Susan O'Malley v. Sharad Karkhanis, John Doe and Jane Doe. Does Mad Magazine Defame?

I have obtained a copy of the formal legal complaint of Susan O'Malley v. Sharad Karkhanis, John Doe and Jane Doe. O'Malley is represented by Joseph Martin Carasso, Esquire, 305 Broadway Suite 1204, New York, NY 10007. The New York Sun has previously quoted O'Malley as saying that "It's all very, very silly". I have copied the 21-page complaint in this blog, excerpting about 95% and omitting only a few paragraphs of technical legal argument, personal information and the like. According to the complaint, O'Malley is a:

"distinguished scholar and author. The author of many publications on early modern pamphlet literature and drama, Shakespeare, higher education, disabled women and civil rights, she has presented papers at conferences and lectures sponsored by the Shakespeare Association of America, the Society for the Study of Renaissance Women, the Modern Language Association, the Renaissance Society America...and is a recipient of NEH, Mellon, Fulbright, Huntington Library, Folger Library and CUNY grants.

"Susan O'Malley has served with distinction in various CUNY university roles...

"During her long service to KCC and CUNY and as Chair of the UFS, Susan O'Malley has acquired and retained a high standing and reputation among the CUNY academic community for her advocacy of high academic standards, accessibility of higher education and her humanity and intelligence...

"In May 2006 Susan O'Malley was the recipient of a resolution of the Executive Committee of the (University Faculty Senate)...honoring her long career dedicated to governance both at KCC and in the wider CUNY community, honoring her advocacy for combining high academic standards with accessibility to higher education, her diligent work, her great humanity and her intelligence and acclaiming O'Malley as a worthy and eminent leader.

"In October 4, 2006, members of the UFS presented a framed copy of the Resolution to Susan O'Malley and gave her a standing ovation for her past and present work and dedication.

"Karkhanis is currently a retired librarian of KCC...Karkhanis was and is at all times relevant and hereinafter mentioned, the owner and publisher of a website and email newsletter known as "The Patriot Returns," located at IP address www.patriotreturns.com

"Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned John Doe was and is also a contributor to the Newsletter and specifically was a contributor to Volume 35, Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4; Volume 36, Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4; Volume 37, Numbers 1, 2 and 3; and Volume 38, Numbers 1 and 2 of said Newsletter.

"Upon information and belief, and at all times hereinafter mentioned Jane Doe was and is also a contributor to the Newsletter and specifically was a contributor to Volume 35, Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4; Volume 36, Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4; Volume 37, Numbers 1, 2 and 3; and Volume 38, Numbers 1 and 2 of said Newsletter.


"MATTERS PERTAINING TO ALL CLAIMS

"On or about the dates and as set forth in the paragraphs below, statements or utterances published (hereinafter the "Utterances") by the defendants Karkhanis, John Doe and Jane Doe concerning the plaintiff were and are both false and defamatory.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth below, the defendants knew that the Utterances contained false statements of facts or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the Utterances and published the Utterances with reckless disregard of whether they were true or not.

"By letter (hereinafter the "Letter") dated April 18, 2007, sent by certified mail to Karkhanis...plaintiff by her attorney advised Karkhanis that portions of the Newsletter specifically Volume 35, Number 4 published on or about March 12, 2007 contained false, damaging and defamatory Utterances.

"In addition, the Letter stated that print publications of the Newsletter contained defamatory Utterances.

"The Letter requested that Karkhanis retract the defamatory Utterances and refrain from making any other defamatory Utterances

"Karkhanis never responded to the Letter

"Karkhanis continued to publish false and defamatory Utterances about Susan O'Malley after receipt of the Letter.

"AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

"Plaintiff repeats reiterates and realleges each and every allegation set forth (above)...

"Commencing on or about February 6, 2007 and continuing to the present day, the defendants published and circulated the following defamatory Utterances of and concerning the plaintiff in the Newsletter Volume 35, Number 2:

"'TERRORISTS TO TEACH AT KCC?
SAY NO TO THE QUEEN OF RELEASED TIME!'

"The Patriot believes that the current actions of the Queen of Released Time, Susan O'Malley, may be rooted in her childhood. Susan hails from a wealthy family so money was never an issue. She decided that it should not be an issue for anyone. So advocating a union that champions criminals and terrorists while cutting ordinary folks' salaries was just perfect.'

"and

"'By intimidation and by joining radical groups she became the leader of the University Faculty Senate, solely for the purpose of enjoying the good life without having to dirty her hands with chalk...In the year 2004 Susan O'Malley found out that Susan Rosenberg was asked to leave her adjunct position at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. It was the perfect time for O'Malley to come to help a convicted criminal.'

"and

"'Was Susan trying to open an opportunity for Yousry in KCC's English Department? Was she thinking that as a Very Important Person in the University she would pressure the Chair and members of the English Department's P&B to hire Mr. Yousry? She probably thought that with all that experience transmitting written screeds and instructions from the Sheik to his terrorist minions, Yousry should be able to teach our KCC students with ease. If Mr. Yousry ever lands at KCC, be assured it is courtesy of the Queen of Released Time...Susan believes in those who preach and practice revolutionary violence, like Susan Rosenberg. She supports the terrorist Yousry who aided fellow terrorists and murderers in a most substantive way, by conveying instructions for murderous activities, directed against us all.'

"and

"'LYNN STEWART AT THE PSC?

"'In October this year campus cafeterias and hallways were filled with hush, hush rumors:...Lynn Stewart...will herald her joining the staff of the PSC. This would be, of course, courtesy of the Queen of Released Time for her idol in distress.'

"and

"'O'Malley will have no trouble pushing Lynn's appointment as a PSC attorney with a sizable salary, to assist the PSC's current convicted-felon attorney, Nathaniel Charney.'

"By this publication, the defendant falsely and maliciously charged and was understood by those people reading the Newsletter to charge the plaintiff with being a person of vicious, disreputable, criminal and 'terrorist' character, who supports 'terrorist' activities at the present time in the United States, who actively goes out of her way to assist convicted criminals without any regard for the CUNY academic community, who believes in those who preach and practice terrorism or violence and murder and has the ability and influence to secure jobs for criminals and 'terrorists' instead of and at the expense of upstanding citizens and law-abiding Americans.

"Hired at KCC in 1974, Susan O'Malley has taught English for many years, has been a full professor of English since 1991 and has often 'dirtied her hands with chalk.'

"Over the course of 28 years (1974-2002) Susan O'Malley received some reassigned time for scholarly research awarded through her winning grants, some reassigned time for co-directing the College Now English Program and teaching in two high schools for the American Social History Project, some reassigned time for being elected to the Executive Committee of the UFS and as the elected KCC Union Chapter Chair for three years.

"Susan O'Malley's life has been dedicated to teaching, scholarly research and governance at KCC and CUNY.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley worked hard for her achievements and did not hail from a wealthy family such that money was never an issue for her or her family.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley attended public schools and raised two children on her own as a single parent.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley believes in and has always practiced peaceful and lawful resolution of disputes

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterance, Susan O'Malley does not believe in terrorism or violence

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley believes that the decision to hire faculty should be decided by faculty and not by other groups outside of the faculty departmental committees.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley never met Susan Rosenberg or talked to her on the telephone

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, the faculty at John Jay College of Criminal Law (hereinafter 'John Jay') were concerned with the removal of Susan Rosenberg, and expressed outrage that they were not consulted when she was not allowed to continue teaching at John Jay because of the objections of a group outside of John Jay.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, it was Susan O'Malley's duty as UFS Chair to represent the views of the faculty at John Jay.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Mohammd Yousry (hereinafter 'Yousry') had taught part time at York College for 7 terms and had received favorable reviews. The faculty at York College wanted him to continue teaching at York College and did not understand why he was removed from the classroom in the middle of the term and forbidden to teach there again.

"Upon information and belief, if Yousry had been a full-time faculty member he could and or would not have been removed without consultations and due process.

"Contrary to the defendants' utterances, Susan O'Malley represented the faculty at York College, including Yousry, which was one of her duties as UFS Chair.

"Contrary to the defendants' implications, Susan O'Malley met Yousry only once at a conference, did not communicate with him at any other time and does not support him in his alleged 'terrorist' activities.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley supports the right of adjunct faculty, including Yousry, to receive due process and not to be removed from the classroom without consulting the head of the department that hired him.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley never emailed or spoke to Lynne Stewart on the telephone, and she never invited her to join the staff of the PSC and never requested that she join the staff of the PSC.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley is not now and has never been in the position to hire or fire faculty, except for the six years that she was elected to the Personnel and Budget Committee (hereinafter "P&B") for the English Department of KCC in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley has never pressured anyone from within the University to hire any faculty at KCC or CUNY.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley was elected to the Chair of the UFS by a democratic vote of the faculty of CUNY and was not elected by 'intimidation'.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley found the position of UFS Chair to be a high stress, demanding, nerve-wracking position, requiring her to be in constant communication with the faculty and the Chancellory.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants knew that the Utterances contained both false statements of fact and false implied statements or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the material.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants acted willfully and with actual malice toward the plaintiff, Susan O'Malley.

"As the result of the publication and the acts of the defendants in connection therewith, the plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridiculed, disgraced and prejudiced and has been irreparably injured in her good name and business reputation and has lost the esteem and respect of her colleagues and members of the KCC and CUNY Community.

"As a result of the publication and the acts of the defendants, plaintiff fears that people who know her only through the defendants' false Utterances that she associates with terrorists and advocates violence will harm her.

"By reasons of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of action.

"The amount of damages sought in this action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all other courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.

"AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

"Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and reallages each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 1 through 22 and 24 through 52 inclusive, of this complaint, with the same force and effect as though more fully set forth at length herein.

"Commencing on or about March 7, 2007 and continuing to the present day, the defendants published and circulated the following defamatory Utterances concerning the plaintiff in their Newsletter, Volume 35, Number 3...to wit:

"'O'MALLEY-QUEDA TRAINING CAMP: FINDING JOBS FOR TERRORISTS A KCC EXCLUSIVE!'

"'We believe that the newly formed "Never-Any-Action Caucus" is the creation of Susan O'Malley (aka Queen of Released Time). Her major goal is to establish a Training Camp to recruit and train, at Kingsborough, people like herself who are misguided, misdirected, misinformed. O'Malley seeks to find jobs at KCC and other CUNY colleges for Mohammed Yousry.'

"and

"'O'Malley doesn't care about us--her only concern is that Yousry should teach at CUNY. O'Malley has also been job-searching for Susan Rosenberg.'

"and

"'O'Malley, though, doesn't care about us--her only concern is that Rosenberg should teach at CUNY.'

"and

"'We believe that the above mentioned KCC individuals [Susan Farrell, Robert Singer, Jack Arnow, Robert Putz, Patrick Lloyd] were selected for the O'Malley-Queda Recruitment Camp because she thinks that (1) they all are naive and gullible and (2)
she can infiltrate the Department and College-wide P&Bs at KCC and at other CUNY colleges to push her PERSONAL AGENDA of finding jobs for Yousry, Rosenberg and other terrorists...Meanwhile remember: the Queen of Released Time is a devious, dangerous and More to come on the Queen...'

"By this publication the defendant falsely and maliciously charged and was understood by those people reading the Newsletter to charge the plaintiff with being a person of vicious, disreputable, criminal and 'terrorist' character who supports 'terrorist' activities at the present time in the United States, who actively goes out of her way to assist convicted criminals without any regard for the CUNY academic community, who acts purely for her own selfish reasons and not for the best interest of the academic community, who believes in those who preach and practice terrorism or violence and murder and has the ability and influence to secure jobs for criminals and terrorists instead of and at the expense of upstanding citizens and law abiding Americans.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, there is no O'Malley-Queda Training Camp.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, the only entity with the authority to hire faculty is the College President upon the recommendation of the Personnel and Budget Committees for the various departments of the colleges of CUNY.

"Susan O'Malley served as a member of the KCC English Department P&B for 6 years in the late 1980s and early 1990s and during her service on the P&B no 'terrorists' were hired.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances that except for announcing at a UFS meeting that she heard that Yousry was loooking for a teaching job, Susan O'Malley has never undertaken any action to obtain a position for Yousry or given any kind of support to Yousry in any way.

"The defendants' Utterances imply that Susan O'Malley gave Yousry or Susan Rosenberg emotional and financial support and or that Susan O'Malley somehow conspired with Yousry or Rosenberg to conduct criminal or terrorist activities at KCCD or CUNY or elsewhere, and or that Susan O'Malley has a goal or personal agenda to find positions at KCC or CUNY for criminals or terrorists and or that Susan O'Malley has criminal and terrorist friends and associates, any and all of which is false and published with the intent to malign Susan O'Malleys good name and character.

"Yousry, a faculty member, called the UFS which represents all CUNY faculty and asked if anyone had a teaching position and left his phone number at the office and not with Susan O'Malley personally.

"Upon information and belief, the UFS office personnal had access to Yousry's phone number.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants knew that the Utterances contained both false statements of facts and false implied statements, or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the material.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants acted willfully and with actual malice toward the plaintiff Susan O'Malley.

"As the result of the publication and the acts of the defendants in connection therewith, the plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridiculed, disgraced and prejudiced and has been irreparably injured in her good name and business reputation and has lost the esteem and respect of her colleagues and members of the KCC and CUNY Community.

"As a result of the publication and the acts of the defendants, plaintiff fears that people who know her only through the defendants' false Utterances that she associates with terrorists and advocates violence will harm her.

"By reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered actual and punitive damage in an amount to be determined upon the trial of action.

"The amount of damages sought in this action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courst which would otherwise have jurisdiction.

"AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

"...Commencing on or about March 12, 2007 and continuing to the present day, the defendants published and circulated the following defamatory Utterances of and concerning the plaintiff in their Newsletter, Volume 35, Number 4...which contains the following matter, to wit:

"'MOHAMMED ON HER MIND! O'MALLEY'S OBSESSION WITH FINDING JOBS FOR TERRORISTS'

"'Queen O'Malley was so obsessed with finding a job for Mohammed Yousry...'

"and

"'Yes, yes, Mohammed was on her mind and she was not going to rest until she got this convicted terrorist a job.'

"and

"'Our questions are:

"'1) Has Queen O'Malley ever made a 'Job Wanted' announcement like this for a non-convicted, non-violent peace loving American educator for a job in CUNY? There are hundreds of qualified people looking for teaching jobs. Why does she prefer convicted terrorists who ar bent on harming our people and our nation over peace-loving Americans?'

and

"'We believe that O'Malley was so obsessed with putting Mohammed back on the CUNY payroll that it pretty much confirms what we said in our earlier Patriot returns (Issue 35.3), i.e., that she is recruiting naive, innocent members of the KCC faculty into her Queda-Camp, to infiltrate college and departmental Personnel and Budget Committees in her mission -- to recruit terrorists in CUNY. Given the opportunity she will bring in all her indicted, convicted and freed-on-bail terrorist-friends...Many of us know peace loving, law abiding never-even-convicted for littering citizens who need work. How many law-abiding adjunct faculty have to worry about getting their two courses in order to hold onto medical benefits? She does not worry about the 'ordinary' adjunct--but she is worried about convicted terrorists! She will take these few precious courses away and give them to terrorists and terrorist sympathizers...We at the Patriot take the liberty of asking you, our readers, a question: How many of you know, or have friends who know, a convicted terrorist an his or her home telephone number?...We sure don't and believe that you don't either. But, watch out-Queen O'Malley does!'

"By this publication the defendant falsely and maliciously charged and was understood by those people reading the newsletter to charge the plaintiff with being a person of vicious, disreputable, criminal and terrorist character who supports "terrorist" activities at the present time in the United States, who actively goes out of her way to assist convicted criminals without any regard for the CUNY academic community, who acts purely for her own selfish reasons and not for the best interest of the academic community, who believes in those who preach and practice terrorism or violence and murder and has the ability and influence to secure jobs for criminals and 'terrorists' instead of and at the expense of decent upstanding citizens and law-abiding Americans.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances and implications, UFS Chair Susan O'Malley duties included representing all faculty of CUNY (including Yousry, who was then a member of the faculty) each of whom she believes are entitle to due process.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley was not obsessed with Yousry, or with finding him a job.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Yousry called the PSC and did not call or speak with Susan O'Malley individually.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants knew that the Utterances contained both false statements of facts and false implied statements or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the material.


"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants acted willfully and with actual malice toward the plaintiff Susan O'Malley.

"As the result of the publicaation and the acts of the defendants in connection therewith, the plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridiculed, disgraced and prejudiced and has been irreparably injured in her good name and business reputation and has lost the esteem and respect of her colleagues and members of the KCC and CUNY Community.

"As a result of the publication and the acts of the defendants, plaintiff fears that people who know her only through the defendants' false Utterances that she associates with terrorists and advocates violence will harm her.

"By reasons of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of action.

"The amount of damages sought in this action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all other courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.

"'AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A DEFAMATION

"Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation set forth (above)....

"Commencing on or about April 17, 2007 and continuing to the present day, the defendants published and circulated the following defamatory Utterances of and concerning the plaintiff in their Newsletter, Volume 36, Number 4... to wit:

"'O'MALLEY TO SEEK CUNY JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR LYNN STEWART'S DAUGHTER ACCUSED OF FAKING SICK LEAVE'

"'It has been rumored in CUNY circles that Susan O'Malley, Community College officer on the PSC Executive Committee was in contact with Brenna Stewart, 45 year old daughter of Lynn Stewart'

"and

"'...O'Malley has obtained Brenna's resume and made copies for distribution at the next Delegate Assembly. Similar to the appeal she made for terrorists Mohammed Yousry and Susan Rosenberg (The Patriot Returns Vol. 35, no. 3 and the Patriot Returns Vol. 35 no. 4). She plans again to use her PSC position to make a personal appeal to the DEA to alert members to her wish for a job for Breena in one of the CUNY units.'

"and

"'O'Malley intends to find a lucrativc job for Brenna at CUNY. College Presidents, Department Chairs, be on the lookout. Brenna will be on your campus this summer, courtesy of the Queen of Released time, and you may be singled out as O'Malley's patsy.'

"By this publication the defendant falsely and maliciously charged and was understood by those people reading the newsletter to charge the plaintiff with being a person of vicious, disreputable, criminal and terrorist character who supports "terrorist" activities at the present time in the United States, who actively goes out of her way to assist convicted criminals without any regard for the CUNY academic community, who acts purely for her own selfish reasons and not for the best interest of the academic community, who believes in those who preach and practice terrorism or violence and murder and has the ability and influence to secure jobs for criminals and 'terrorists' instead of and at the expense of decent upstanding citizens and law-abiding Americans.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, plaintiff Susan O'Malley has never met or talked to Brenna Stewart, never saw her resume and therefore never circulated her resume and never intended to or discussed looking for a position for Brenna Stewart.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances and the implications contained therein, plaintiff Susan O'Malley believes in peaceful resolution of disputes and the rule of law, does not believe in "terrorism" or violence and does not support terrorist activities.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants knew that the Utterances contained both false statements of facts and false implied statements, or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the material.

"At the time time defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants acted willfully and with actual malice toward the plaintiff, Susan O'Malley.

"As the result of the publication and the acts of the defendants in connection therewith, the plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridiculed, disgraced and prejudiced and has been irreparably harmed in her good name and business reputation and has lost the esteem and respect of her colleagues and members of the KCC and CUNY Community.

"As a result of the publication and the acts of the defendants, plaintiff fears that people who know her only through the defendants' false Utterances that she associates with "terrorists" and advocates violence will harm her.

"By reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of action.

"The amount of damages sought in this action excees the jurisdictional lmits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.

"AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

"Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges (the above)...

"Commencing on or about September 11, 2007 and continuing to the present day, the defendants published and circulated the following defamatory Utterances of and concerning the plaintiff in their Newsletter Volume 37, Number 1...which contains the following matter, to wit:

"'It is now OFFICIAL. The Queen is ABSENT from KCC AGAIN this year

and

"'The arrogance of being away for four years and immediately requesting a sabatical at 80% of the top Full Professor salary! But now, after only one year's stint, still with many hours of released time, she is again away at 80% of salary! Plus, most likely, money from the PSC (that's our dues money). How conniving you can be when you are Queen! Obviously, the Queen doesn't like associating with those lowly peasants and serfs, otherwise known as working faculty. Just take the final step already, O'Malley: leave for good!'

"By this publication the defendant falsely and maliciously charged and was understood by those people reading the Newsletter to charge the plaintiff with being a thief, a person of dishonest and disreputable character, who works for her own selfish interests and against the best interests of the CUNY academic community, who improperly takes monies and or dues from the PSC and uses them for her own benefit, and further a person who dislikes and looks down on her academic colleagues and staff.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, plaintiff Susan O'Malley has always represented the faculty at KCC and CUNY in an honest manner and has never taken money or received money from the PSC.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, plaintiff Susan O'Malley has many friends and associates among her faculty and would never call them 'lowly peasants and serfs' which term implies that she is superior to them and which implication is false and defamatory.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above the defendants knew that the Utterances contained both false statements of facts and false implied statements or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the material.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants acted willfully and with actual malice toward the plaintiff Susan O'Malley.

"As the result of the publication and the acts of the defendants in connection therewith, the plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridiculed, disgraced and prejudiced and has been irreparabley injured in her good name and business reputation and has lost the esteem and respect of her colleagues and members of the KCC and CUNY Community.


"By reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of action.

"The amount of damages sought in this action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.


"AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

"Plaintiff repeates, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation....

"Commencing on or about March 29, 2007 and continuing to the present day the defendants published and circulated the following defamatory Utterances of and concerning the plaintiff in their Newsletter, Volume 36, Number 2....to wit:

"'She talks about her scholarly merit but does not bring along her supposed publications. It makes one wonder how scholarly she really is.'

"By this publication, the defendant falsely and maliciously charged and was understood by those people reading the Newsletter to charge the plaintiff with being unscholarly, lacking scholarly excellence and characterizing her academic achievements dishonestly.

"Contrary to the defendants' implication that Susan O'Malley research was not scholarly, Susan O'Malley has written and edited books and articles for publication, including by the University of Illinois Press, the University of Delaware Press, Oxford University Press and SUNY Press, all of which prior to publication were peer reviewed to assure their scholarly merit.

"Contrary to the defendants' implication, plaintiff Susan O'Malley has presented papers, given lectures and participated in seminars at conferences sponsored by the Shakespeare Association of America, the Group for Early Modern Cultural Studies, the Modern Language Association, Attending to Early Modern Women,k the Society for the Study of Women in the Renaissance, the English Forum at the CUNY Graduate School, Princeton University and the International Conference on Higher Education in Ankara, Turkey, Columbia University and the CUNY Graduate School.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, plaintiff Susan O'Malley was appointed to the Liberal Studies Program at the CUNY Graduate Center which is an indication of CUNY's respect for Susan O'Malley's scholarship and teaching.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants knew that the Utterances contained both false statements of facts and false implied statements, or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the material.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants knew that the Utterances contained both false statements of fact and false implied statements, or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the material.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants acted willfully and with actual malice toward the plaintiff Susan O'Malley.

"As the result of the publication and the acts of the defendants in connection therewith, the plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridiculed, disgraced and prejudiced and has been irreparably injured in her good name and business reputation and has lost the esteem and respect of her colleagues and members of the KCC and CUNY Community.

"By reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of action.


"The amount of damages sought in this action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.

"AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

"Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation....

"Commencing on or about Ocotber 6, 2006 and continuing to the present day, the defendants published and circulated the following defamatory Utterances of an concernng the plaintiff in their Newsletter,Volume 35, Number 1 ...to wit:

"'CUNY's Queen Abdicates!'

"'The University Faculty Senate breathes...A SIGH OF RELIEF!!...Professor Susan O'Malley, longtime member of the English Department at Kingsborough Community College and a former editor of/contributor to the Radical Teacher, has returned kicking and screaming to her teaching position after four years as chair of the University Faculty Senate. Many considered her service there to be embarrassing, unproductive and harmful to the university. Long-suffering members of the UFS' staff were so delighted that--according to some reports--they threw a party in celebration of her departure at an undisclosed location in Chelsea. Numerous senators were so overjoyed that they, too, gathered at a watering hole in the Garment District and celebrated with a toast, or so rumor has it.'

"and

"'THE RETURN OF THE QUEEN?'

"'Prior to her elevation to the Senate, the Queen was seldom seen on her home campus. She was far too busy politicking for more released time.'

"and

"'She considered demonstrating in front of Chancellor Goldstein's residence or conducting a candlelight vigil at KCC President Regina Peruggi's house.'

"By this publication the defendant falsely and maliciously charged and was understood by those people reading the Newsletter to charge the plaintiff with being a person of lazy and disreputable character and who was working for her own selfish interests and against the best interests of the academic community for KCC and CUNY, that she dislikes teaching, mistrusts her staff and colleagues, and is in all respects a person who has failed to contribute anything of value to her students, CUNY governance and the CUNY academic community.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley had a distinguished career as a scholar and teacher, and has made outstanding contributions to university governance and to the Faculty Staff Union.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, during her term as Chair of the Faculty Senate, Susan O'Malley has acquired and retained a high standing and reputation among the CUNY academic community for her advocacy of high academic standards and accessibility of higher education, her humanity and intelligence.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley has always conducted her professional duties with dignity and grace, and her service as UFS Chair has been distinguished and productive.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley was honored with the Resolution of the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate honoring her service and diligent work, her humanity and intelligence and acclaiming her a worthy and eminent leader emerita.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, the term of the UFS Chair is limited to four years, Susan O'Malley served her full term as UFS Chair, and she did not abdicate her position.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley likes and enjoys teaching and in fact defines herself as a teacher as well as a scholar. During her four years as UFS Chair, she missed her students and the classes she taught upon her return to teaching at KCC were rewarding and valued.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, the only party was held by Susan O'Malley and the UFS Senators and staff to celebrate her four years as Chair of the UFS.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, during her term as UFS Chair Susan O'Malley's primary workplace was at the CUNY Central Office, located on E. 80th St., New York, but in addition she attended various administrative functions at KCC.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, during her term as UFS Chair Susan O'Malley worked a minimum of 5 days per week, 8 hours per day, and often worked into the evening, on weekends and during the summer.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, the UFS Chair is automatically reassigned from teaching to working full-time at the UFS Office in CUNY's Central Office, and such reassignment is approved by the Chancellor.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley never politicked to be reassigned from her teaching duties.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley has never demonstrated or conducted a candlight vigil at the KCC's President Regina Peruggi's home.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above the defendants knew that the Utterances contained both false statements of fact and false implied statements or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the material.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants acted willfully and with actual malice toward the plaintiff, Susan O'Malley.

"As the result of the publication and the acts of the defendants in connection therewith, the plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridiculed, disgraced and prejudiced and has been irreparably injured in her good name and business reputation and has lost the esteem and respect of her colleagues and members of the KCC and CUNY Community.

"By reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of action.

"The amount of damages sought in this action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.

"AS AND FOR A EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

"Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation set forth (abvoe)...

"Commencing on or about March 20, 2007 and continuing to the present day, the defendants published and circulated the following defamatory Utterances of and concerning the plaintiff in their Newsletter Volume 36, Number 1... to wit:

"'IF YOU VOTE FOR THE NO/ACTION SLATE THIS IS WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT'

"'You will be required...To participate in a candlelight vigil in front of President Peruggi's home. (After all, the New Caucus' Bowen/London did it in front of Chancellor Goldstein's home. Why not Lloyd/O'Malley in front of Peruggi's home?

"By this publication, the defendant falsely and maliciously charged and was understood by those people reading the Newsletter to charge the plaintiff with being a person of disreputable character, who participated in a demonstration in front of Chancellor Goldstein's home and who advocated demonstrations of no value or merit for her own interest and against the best interest of the CUNY academic community.

"At the time the Utterance of was published, plaintiff Susan O'Malley did not know the location of President Peruggi's home.

"Plaintiff Susan O'Malley has never discussed demonstrating in front of President Peruggi's home.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants knew that the Utterances contained both false statements of facts and false implied statements, or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the material.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants acted willfully and with actual malice toward the plaintiff, Susan O'Malley.

"As the results of the publication adn the acts of the defendants in connection therewith, the plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridiculed, disgraced and prejudiced and has been irreparably injured in her good name and business reputation and has lost the esteem and respect of her colleagues and members of the KCC and CUNY Community.

"By reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of action.

"The amount of damages sought in this action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.

"AS AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

"Plaintiff reiterates and realleges each and every allegation set forth (above)...

"Commencing on or about April 9, 2007 and continuing to the present day, the defendants published and circulated the following defamatory Utterances of and concerning the plaintiff in their Newsletter, Volume 36, Number 3, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C, which contains the following matter, to wit:

"'...of course she's been AWOL (from KCC) for years!'

"and

"'Know that the Queen of Released Time is running for this election not to serve you and the needs of KCC faculty, but for her own selfish interest.'

"and

"'Susan O'Malley attended a demonstration in front of Senator Joe Lieberman's Connecitcut home last Easter Sunday to oppose his support for fighting terrorists'

"and

"'ON YOUR DUES MONEY'

"By this publication the defendant falsely and maliciously charged and was understood by those people reading the Newsletter to charge the plaintiff with being a person of vicious, disreputable character who works for her own selfish interests and against the best interestthe CUNY academic community, who is lazy, selfish and disreputable character, who supports the activities of 'terrorists' and opposes those who fight terrorists that she is a thief and is only interested in avoiding teaching.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances that Susan O'Malley has been AWOL from the KCC for years, Susan O'Malley was elected and served from 2002-6 as the Chair of the UFS (the first Community College Professor to do so), attended College Counsel meetings at KCC, served as the representative for KCC and attended numerous committee meetings at KCC, all in service for and at KCC.

"Contrary to the defendants' Utterances, Susan O'Malley never attended a demonstration in front of Senator Joe Lieberman's Connecticut home to oppose his support for fighting terrorists or for any other reason.

"Contrary to the defedants' Utterances, plaintiff Susan O'Malley has never received reassigned time from the current PSC leadership.

"At the time the defendants pubished the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants knew that the Utterances contained both false statements of fact and false implied statements, or recklessly failed to take the proper steps to ascertain the accuracy of the material.

"At the time the defendants published the defamatory Utterances set forth above, the defendants acted willfully and with actual malice toward the plaintiff, Susan O'Malley.

"As the result of the publications and the acts of the defendeants in connection therewith, the plaintiff has been held up to public contempt, ridiculed, disgraced and prejudiced and has been irreparably injured in her good name and business reputation and has lost the esteem and respect of her colleagues and members of the KCC and CUNY Community.

"By reasons of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trial of action.

"The amount of damages sought in this action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction.

"AS AND FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

"Plaintiff reiterates and realleges each and every allegation set forth (above)...

"As a result of the defendants' false and hurtful Utterances in the Newsletter, on or about the dates set forth above, plaintiff has maintained severe mental and emotional anguish and distress.

"The defendants outrageously intended to cause or recklessly caused plaintiff mental or emotional distress, mental anguish and fear for her personal safety.

"Defendants in inflicting severe moral and emotional distress upon Susan O'Malley at all times acted willfully and with actual malcie toward plaintiff Susan O'Malley.

"By reason of the foregoing, the plaintiff has suffered actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of action.

"The amount of damages sought in this action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction

"WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Susan O'Malley, demands judgment against the defendants as follows:

"A. On the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seveth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Causes of Action, awarding plaintiff Susan O'Malley actual and punitive damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of this action;

"B. For an Order permanently enjoining the defendants from making any oral and or written communication to any person, other than their attorneys, that suggest the plaintiff has committed unlawful acts or crimes, or that could foreseeably impugn the plaintiff's character, integriy or reputation in the opinion of an ordinary person;

"For an Order that all pleadings, papers, exhibits and other matter filed with Court in this action be sealed;

"For an Order directing the defendants to publically apologize for their defamatory Utterances and to publish retractions of same;

"Awarding plaintiff Susan O'Malley her costs, and disbursements in this action and

"Granting the plaintiff Susan O'Malley such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper.

"December 21, 2007

"Joseph Martin Carasso, Attorney for Plaintiff
305 Broadway, Suite 1204
New York, NY 1007
212-732-0500"