Noah Carl is a Hero

Noah Carl is a recent Ph.D. graduate who was subjected to an Antifa attack at Cambridge University, which had hired him as a research fellow. The reason for the attack is that Carl researches IQ, concerning which the left prefers superstition to science. Dan Klein has written a piece about Carl's case at the James G. Martin Center. Klein has forwarded a Crowdfunding link, which will enable Carl to pursue a case. 

A Witch Hunt Comes to Cambridge

Dan Klein wrote an excellent piece about Cambridge fellow Noah Carl's sacking because left-wing extremists disapprove of his work on IQ.  I wrote the following letter to President Trump:

Dear Mr. President:

I urge you to amend your executive order requiring First Amendment compliance by public colleges  to prohibit funding to American universities that do business with foreign universities that violate the First Amendment.

Professor Noah Carl was a fellow at St. Edmund's Cambridge.  He was recently fired for pursuing objective scientific research about IQ.  There was a demonstration at Cambridge at which 1,400 left-wing students and professors--out of about 30,000 Cambridge students and professors--demanded his firing. Cambridge caved to the extremists' demand and revoked Carl's appointment.  A recent article about his sacking is  at https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2019/06/a-witch-hunt-comes-for-the-nonconformist/

American universities can subvert your First Amendment executive order by collaborating with intolerant, left-wing universities in foreign countries.  Eliminating federal funding of  universities that do business with foreign universities that violate the First Amendment will ensure that public monies are not used for extremist causes.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert

An Honorary Degree for Sacco and Vanzetti?

I am reading Stephen Edward Epler's book Honorary Degrees, published in 1943. Epler wrote the book after finishing his doctorate at Teachers College; he was working at Southern Oregon College of Education when he wrote it. Epler went on to found Portland State University.

The book offers a window into the history of American colleges, and there is much of specialist interest, but one quotation caught my eye.

Epler points out that through the 1930s, honorary degree recipients tended to be conservatives. In that regard, he notes that in 1838 Harvard gave an honorary degree to James T. Austin, who as Massachusetts attorney general praised a lynch mob that had murdered the abolitionist Elijah P. Lovejoy. He adds that 100 years later, in 1938, Smith College gave honorary degrees to two of Lovejoy's descendants. Ex-president Herbert Hoover spoke at the occasion. Epler concludes this:

In 1922 Harvard gave an LL.D. to a Massachusetts attorney who soon after aided in the conviction of Sacco and Vanzetti. It may be wondered if, in 2022, a college will honor descendants of these men at a celebration memorializing the struggle for freedom of speech.

Epler could not have conceived the extent to which the left would have subsequently triumphed on campus or its future opposition to freedom of speech. His prediction, though, is perspicacious. I'm surprised Harvard hasn't erected a memorial statue to Sacco and Vanzetti.

USD Should Establish a Gail Heriot Award

Peter Wood of the National Association of Scholars had sent a press release about a controversy concerning Professor Gail Heriot's testimony about transgender bathrooms.  I don't consider the issue to be a federal one, and I don't consider it to be particularly important. However, I do believe that a professor with an opinion should be allowed to testify before Congress without having her life threatened by authoritarian left wingers.   I wrote this email to the dean of the University of San Diego's law school and the university's president.  Peter Wood's email follows.

Dear Dean Ferruolo and President Harris:

I read about the recent abuse of Professor Gail Heriot.

Gail Heriot has performed a public service by testifying before the US House Taskforce on Executive Overreach.  In response, Representative Zoe Lofgren has attacked Professor Heriot, calling her a bigot. Several blogs have joined the attack, and activists who support Representative Lofgren’s views and tenor have sent Professor Heriot death threats.  As well, Dean Ferruolo has received demands that he fire Professor Heriot.

In a sense, this is a letter of congratulation. In hiring and supporting Professor Heriot, you are performing an important public service. Easy cases do not test academic freedom, and it is with respect to hard cases that public service like Heriot’s is signal.

We have seen this  intolerant tendency in and around universities  since the 1980s.  Representative Lundgren’s inability to disagree about a difficult moral and social question is inconsistent with the ability of a free society to function.  Her performance has been disgraceful.

It is time for universities  to encourage political speech that offends authoritarian sensibilities. I urge the University of San Diego to establish a Gail Heriot award to honor faculty who engage in difficult public debate.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

PRESS RELEASE: New York, NY (May 27, 2016) Peter Wood, the president of the National Association of Scholars, has responded with the following statement to the controversy over Professor Heriot’s May 24, 2016 testimony to the U.S. Taskforce on Executive Overreach. On Tuesday Gail Heriot, a professor of law at the University of San Diego and a board member of the National Association of Scholars, gave testimony to the U.S. House Taskforce on Executive Overreach criticizing new guidance on restrooms and locker rooms for transgendered individuals. Professor Heriot testified that the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) had overstepped its legal authority in issuing its May 13 “Dear Colleague” letter, which requires all schools to allow students to use the restroom and locker room of their choice, regardless of biological sex. In the questioning that followed Professor Heriot’s prepared statement, California Representative Zoe Lofgren attacked Professor Heriot’s testimony as “offensive.” Lofgren continued, "I think you’re a bigot, lady. I think you are an ignorant bigot."  Lofgren was particularly upset that Professor Heriot’s remarks would become part of the committee’s official record. The chairman of the Taskforce, Representative Steve King (Iowa), responded to Lofgren’s outburst by calling the meeting to order and asked Lofgren to refrain from “calling names.” Lofgren, however, persisted and announced she could “not allow that kind of bigotry to go unchallenged.” Several left-wing blogs quickly reported on the event. Brad Reed, writing at Raw Story, characterized Lofgren’s remarks as an “epic smack-down.” The reports set off a cascade of hate mail to Professor Heriot, including death threats and a writer urging her to commit suicide. Stephen C. Ferruolo, the dean of the law school at the University of San Diego, has also received demands that he fire Professor Heriot. The National Association of Scholars strongly supports Professor Heriot. Her invited testimony to the U.S. House Taskforce on Executive Overreach was well crafted and represents carefully considered views well within her professional expertise. In no way did Professor Heriot present “bigoted” statements on sexual identity. Rather, she gave a history of the OCR’s past disregard for legal limits to its authority and traced the history of the law regarding transgender individuals. She also noted that the concept of “transgender” did not enter the legal vocabulary until many years after the passage of Title IX, which OCR claims as the basis for its authority to issue its “Dear Colleague” letters. Lofgren’s outburst was outrageous. It violated the standards of civility of the U.S. House of Representatives. And it was especially inappropriate in view of the temperate character of Professor Heriot’s remarks. It is perhaps too much to hope that Representative Lofgren will apologize for her antics as they seem to have served her purpose in exciting her progressive base. Other observers will take note of her abuse of her authority. We expect the University of San Diego to disregard the calls to remove Professor Heriot from her position. The National Association of Scholars recognizes Professor Heriot’s outstanding work on behalf of civil rights in America and her determination to uphold the rule of law during a period in which the executive has frequently abused it.

National Health Insurance and Freedom

Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom argues that governmental control of economic resources eliminates personal freedom. In the Soviet Union, critics of the state could be deprived of work because the state controlled jobs. Friedman argues that economic freedom is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for personal freedom and civil liberties. Not all capitalist states, such as Chile and China, are liberal with respect to personal freedom, but no purely socialist state is liberal. Sweden is a good example even though it is not purely socialist. A good book on that subject is Roland Huntford's New Totalitarians, which documents a very lengthy list of ways that the socialist state in Sweden and Swedish society suppress individual liberty.

The effect of governmental power on freedom is easily seen in the expansion of government-supported universities, which exclude conservatives and libertarians from employment. One hundred percent of the institutions of higher learning in New York, public and private, are government supported, and all exclude from employment professors who disagree with state expansion. I frequently receive mail from professors and/or students that says "if you do not believe in government, then why do you work for a public university?" In other words, the state expands the scope of its power, and dissidents are to be excluded from its operations, ensuring that they are to remain unemployed. Only believers in state power are to be employed by state universities, according to this argument.That is, protest of the state's expansion is to be punished through unemployment.

Advocates of the "you work at CUNY so you should favor big government" position are in essence saying that in a purely socialist economy no disagreement with socialism will be permitted since all jobs would be controlled by the government. How can you work for the government if you disagree with government power? You will either work and survive or you will disagree with socialism. Not both.

There is much clear evidence of suppression of speech in universities, but none as clear as suggested in that argument, which has been made by readers of this blog several times. The advocates of socialism aim to silence and suppress all who disagree with them, and as the state gains power, they will economically punish anyone who disagrees, just as university professors have excluded liberals* from employment.

Now what should we fear from national health insurance? What kind of health care can dissidents in a socialized America expect when academics and officials of a socialist bureaucracy control access to health care? Will personal freedom exist? I think not. Will dissidents receive care in a socialist America? Or will they be compelled to undergo psychiatric treatment as they were in the Soviet Union?

A government-dominated health plan, national health insurance, is a threat to freedom and it should be feared. It should be feared because its advocates, the social democrats in the Democratic Party, are intolerant thugs.

*In case you're not used to this use of "liberal", the true meaning of the word liberal is "libertarian". The concept of "state activist liberalism" is an Orwellian corruption of language. Liberals believe in freedom, in liberalis, in liberalism. They do not believe in big government. That is the ideology of fascism, communism, socialism and authoritarianism and, of course, social democracy.

Selected Blogs of Candace de Russy

Candace de Russy blogs at Phi Beta Cons at National Review.com and she has been productive of late. De Russy uncovers, courageously and without prejudice, scams, shams, swindles, stings, and sucker games that are essential to the postmodern university. The "cons" in phi beta cons are the universities themselves, as a review of de Russy's blogs reveals.

Item: Michael Bloomberg, the INO (independent in name only) presidential candidate, contributed $200 million to the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, which has just produced a fraudulent report concerning the Iraqi War. Undoubtedly, the Mayor's affiliation with the public health school contributes to his interest in progressive-liberal health fascism. De Russy notes that Bloomberg remarked that the Johns Hopkins researchers “are just some of the great, honest academics, the most talented academics around". Rumor has it that Mayor Bloomberg made similar remarks when he awarded a large pay and retirement bonus to a school principal who, it turned out, had falsified the test results for which he had rewarded her.

As well, de Russy notes that George Soros may have funded the bogus Johns Hopkins story.

(Also see discussion in Dan Stover's Northern Alliance Wannabe Blog.)

Item: de Russy deconstructs the motives of Columbia University, the politically correct institution that refuses to pay taxes on the large number of New York City properties and the the trust fund that it owns, even as its left-wing faculty argues for higher taxes. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, in 2006 Columbia's tax-exempt endowment totaled $5.9 billion and earned a return of 14.4% or $840 million, enough to provide all of its students with free tuition (24,000 students x $35,000 tuition = $840 million).

Academics claim that they care about the poor, minorities' rights and the oppressed. But instead of using its endowment to provide education to its students, or to provide much needed job training and remedial education to the large number of minority poor people in its community, Columbia utilizes the services of Mayor Bloomberg to indulge in private use eminent domain, aiming to loot land from the people of Harlem, throwing the poor on the streets to benefit its progressive-liberal faculty, which advocates taxing others to benefit themselves.

De Russy quotes the New York Sun, which notes that Columbia is busily reinforcing its progressive-liberal credentials:

"'Virtual empires benefiting private interests — secured through government force — are springing up especially across New York City,'” notably, at Columbia University, which 'seeks land that rightfully belongs to its West Harlem neighbors so it can expand its campus.'"

I can't wait until Mayor Bloomberg becomes president so that politically connected swindlers will have access to land from Peoria to Pennsylvania.

Item: de Russy blogs about Major Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon analyst who has been fired "for his politically incorrect but “hard-to-refute views on the relationship between Islamic law and Islamist jihad doctrine." Let us hope that the Pentagon's resort to political correctness will be rectified.

Item: de Russy notes that:

"The president of Al-Quds University in Jerusalem, Sari Nusseibeh, made anti-Semitic remarks during a rant against the presence of Jews in any future Palestinian state. Al-Quds has partnered with several American and Canadian universities to offer programs, classes, and research opportunities. These schools include the University of Michigan at Dearborn, Northeastern University, York University in Ontario, Brandeis, and George Washington University. Al-Quds also receives U.S. government support."

Here is one more nail in the coffin of Alan Colmes's argument that progressive-liberals aren't really Nazis. Of course, they are, Jonah Goldberg. Of course they are.

Item: de Russy notes that the Anti-Racist Blog has:

"obtained a series of e-mails promoting a despicable campaign to de-legitimize Israel on college campuses across the United States that will be waged in the coming months. As you will see, anti-Zionist conspirators from student groups such as MSA, and SJP are preparing for a coordinated and unprecedented nationwide assault on the Jewish State and its supporters."

Here is yet one more nail in the coffin of Alan Colmes's argument that progressive-liberals aren't really Nazis.

Item: de Russy notes that there has been a proposal for a Russell Kirk University.

I hope that they have a business school!

Item: de Russy notes that:

"John Yoo, a Yale Law School graduate who served at the Justice Department, has been sued by convicted terrorist Jose Padilla, who is being represented by lawyers at Yale. As the editors of the Wall Street Journal observe, “Perhaps if Mr. Yoo had decided to pursue a life of terrorism, he too could be represented by his alma mater.”

I guess when they're not stealing land from poor African Americans, universities keep themselves busy by harming their alumni!

Item: de Russy notes an Anti-Racist Blog recount of a Chicago Tribune story by Jim Tankersley which mentions that:

"U.S. government officials authorized giving nearly $1 million in foreign aid to a Palestinian university with links to the terrorist group Hamas, despite vetting the school eight times for ties to terrorism, according to a government audit."

Item: de Russy provides still more evidence of the progressive-liberal/Nazi link:

"Norman Finkelstein, a critic of Israel who resigned last year as a political science professor at DePaul University, met this week with a senior official of Hezbollah in south Lebanon.

"Although the U.S. government has labeled Hezbollah a terrorist organization, Finkelstein portrays the group as standing for “hope.”

"...In the past, Finkelstein has maintained that some Jewish groups have exploited the Holocaust for political and financial gain.(AP)"

De Russy consistently demonstrates excellence in blogging. Please, please keep up the good work, Candace. We love you even if our drooling governor showed you the door.

Candace de Russy Blogs Latest Developments in O'Malley v. Karkhanis

Candace de Russy blogs the latest developments in O'Malley v. Karkhanis on NRO online.

>"O’Malley v. Karkhanis, John Doe and Jane Doe [Candace de Russy]

"CUNY Professor Susan O’Malley recently filed a formal defamation complaint against Emeritus Professor Sharad Karkhanis. Professor Mitchell Langbert has recorded the entire complaint in his blog, noting three aspects of the case that merit public scrutiny:

"One involves the scope of academic freedom. A second involves freedom of speech in a collective bargaining unit and the interaction of labor law with defamation and First Amendment rights. A third involves the extent to which the courts and public dispute resolution processes interact with collegial academic processes.

O'Malley v. Karkhanis: In Pursuit of the Acadmic Alfred E. Neuman

Professor Susan O’Malley’s attorney, Joseph Martin Carasso of New York City, filed her formal defamation complaint against Emeritus Professor Sharad Karkhanis 11 days ago. The complaint is well-written and Attorney Carasso deserves credit for clear, no-holds-barred writing. I have recorded the entire complaint in my blog.

There are several issues in O’Malley v. Karkhanis, John Doe and Jane Doe that deserve public scrutiny. One involves the scope of academic freedom. A second involves freedom of speech in a collective bargaining unit and the interaction of labor law with defamation and First Amendment rights. A third involves the extent to which the courts and public dispute resolution processes interact with collegial academic processes. After mentioning these points, I review the blogger and media coverage of the O’Malley case. Then, I mention a couple of the key points in Professor O’Malley's complaint and offer some comments.

The O’Malley case is consistent with the long-observed deterioration of universities’ willingness to tolerate dissent. It may suggest an extension of this deterioration to universities’ use of the courts to suppress external criticism. Much as Singapore’s dictator Lee Kuan Yew and Saudi billionaire Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz have used litigation to silence Chee Soon Juan and Rachel Ehrenfeld, so universities may have begun to use tax-exempt and publicly financed assets to bring politically motivated law suits.

Another potential implication of the O’Malley case is that Professor O'Malley implicitly argues that academic freedom is more limited than the freedom of speech associated with public political discourse. In other words, academic freedom may be more rather than less constrained than public freedom with respect to discourse concerning public figures. Whether O’Malley is a public figure is debatable. The courts may choose to fashion a different standard of speech for academic discourse than for public discourse.

A third point is that there are potential labor issues. In union certification elections the National Labor Relations Board has attempted to establish the concept that there must be laboratory conditions whereby employers and unions cannot threaten or cajole bargaining unit members to vote for or against a union. The PSC is a creature of New York’s Taylor Law, not the National Labor Relations Act. The question in this case is whether an elected union officer, who shares interests in common with the union president (Barbara Bowen) and other officers, should have the right to suppress dissident speech and opinion through the transactions costs associated with law suits. The pro-union New York courts may well consider that this is acceptable.

A fourth point pertains to collegiality. Several officers of the faculty union, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC), to include President Bowen and Professor O’Malley, have previously publicly attacked another member of the faculty, Professor KC Johnson, in part claiming that he lacked collegiality. Now, Professor O’Malley sues Professor Karkhanis, sidestepping collegial processes and turning her dispute with him into a matter of public record. Can law suits be viewed as part of academic governance processes? If so, can the public continue to support the expense of collegial processes given that academics cause additional dispute resolution costs also at the public's expense?

Media and Blogger coverage of O’Malley v. Karkhanis, John Doe and Jane Doe

On October 31, Annie Karni of the New York Sun noted that Professor O’Malley said of her case that "it's all very, very silly". Karni also quotes Professor Karkhanis as saying that the law suit is “an attempt to infringe on his freedom of speech” and that all of his comments were meant as “satire”. The two statements are parallel. Professor O’Malley characterizes her case as “silly” because Professor Karkhanis’s statements about her were satirical.

As well, the Sun quotes Professor Karkhanis:

"She's a public figure, and I have a right to say that, based on the evidence I have and the pattern I've seen of this woman…Why would someone try to assist the terrorist people when you have good Americans who are looking for the job?"

The Sun notes that Professor Karkhanis criticized Professor O’Malley for defending the right of Susan Rosenberg to teach. Rosenberg had spent 16 years in prison for explosives possession. As well, Professor Karkhanis criticized Professor O’Malley’s statement in a University Faculty Senate (UFS) meeting that Mohammed Yousry, convicted of terrorist-related activity, ought to be given a job.

In the New York Post, Dareh Gregorian notes that much of Professor O’Malley’s complaint revolves around Professor Karkhanis’s statements concerning her “obsession with finding jobs for terrorists" and her support for Lynne Stewart, Mohammed Yousry and Susan Rosenberg. Gregorian also notes that Professor Karkhanis believes that what he wrote was satire and that his statements were “appropriate."

Candace de Russy notes that Professor Karkhanis made several accusations about Professor O'Malley after she proposed to rehire Mohamed Yousry, an Arabic-language translator convicted of supporting terrorist activities. He was fired from York College.

In FIRE’s the Torch, Luke Sheahan points out that Professor Karkhanis has been a critic of Professor O’Malley and that he had stated that she was trying to “bring in all her indicted, convicted, and freed-on-bail terrorist friends to the university”.

In Frontpagemag, Phil Orenstein notes that the PSC has a history of aiding and abetting terrorists. Phil also notes that the PSC has focused on left-wing political activity while bread and butter issues have languished and “welfare fund reserves fell by 97%”.

Phil also notes that past issues of Karkhanis’s newsletter, Patriot Returns, have attacked Professor O’Malley for supporting Professor Timothy Shortell, who claimed that all religious people are “moral retards”. Professor Karkhanis has also attacked Professor O’Malley for attempting to find Susan Rosenberg a job and her public statement that Mohammed Yousry was seeking a job at a faculty senate meeting. Phil argues that Professor Karkhanis’s newsletter is a check against abuses of power by the PSC and that the law suit is a free speech issue.

The United Federation of Teachers, Phil points out, has seen considerable internal rancor but has never seen a law suit by a union officer against a member, with the union openly taking the officer’s side. Phil also argues that O’Malley is a public figure and so is fair game for criticism.

In a recent blog in Democracy Project Phil Orenstein also notes that the Queens Village Republican Club in New York has named Professor Karkhanis “Educator of the Year” and will hand him an award for his ongoing struggle for freedom of speech and his refusal to be silenced by the PSC’s program of suppression of conservatives.

An example of the PSC's suppression of conservatives appears in History News Network. KC Johnson notes that Dorothee Benz,a PSC spokesperson argues that

“Free speech has limits, as any first year law student knows. O’Malley’s case concerns one of those limits, where the right to free speech comes up against the harm caused by libelous statements. Whether accusing someone of aiding and training terrorists, in a post-9/11 world, rises to meet the legal standards.”

The PSC sees conviction for explosives possession or conviction for colluding with terrorists as protected speech, but it views criticism of its officers as falling outside the limits of free speech, even when those accusations have factual basis.

Johnson adds that although Karkhanis’s rhetoric can be “over the top”, it played a key role in last year’s union election. Karkhanis’s newsletter has called O’Malley “Queen of Released time” and has criticized O’Malley for multiple office holding and “non-accomplishment” Johnson points out that

“unless O’Malley is going to claim that Yousry and Rosenberg were not convicted terrorists, Karkhanis’ statements about her urging CUNY colleges to hire terrorists were factually true. Rosenberg was a member of a terrorist organization; Yousry was accused and convicted of aiding a convicted terrorist. So what would motivate such a suit?"

Scott Jaschik of Inside Higher Ed notes that while “Karkhanis said that he does not believe O’Malley to be a terrorist (or a queen, which he calls her frequently)", Professor O’Malley’s attorney said that “falsely accusing or alleging someone is a terrorist or is aiding terrorists in the current year, post-9/11, is a serious charge”. Professor Karkhanis replies that “the factual basis behind the terrorism jabs — that O’Malley went to bat for these individuals — has been demonstrated by e-mail messages he posted on his Web site.”

The O’Malley Complaint

I blog the O’Malley complaint in its virtual entirety here. A few of the points are that Professor Karkhanis said that Professor Susan O’Malley comes from a wealthy background, which Professor O’Malley denies. He also said that she used “intimidation” and joining “radical groups” to become leader of the University Faculty Senate to avoid “dirtying her hands with chalk”. He said that O’Malley tried to help Susan Rosenberg, a convicted criminal. He said that O’Malley tried to pressure departmental chairs to help Yousry, who was convicted of abetting terrorism. He said that the “Queen of Released Time” (Professor O’Malley) was jockeying to have Lynn Stewart hired to the staff of the PSC union. In a second cause of action, Professor O’Malley complains that Professor Karkhanis’s newsletter used a headline:

“O'MALLEY-QUEDA TRAINING CAMP: FINDING JOBS FOR TERRORISTS A KCC EXCLUSIVE”

and that Professor Karkhanis called the New Caucus, the left-wing group that dominates the Professional Staff Congress, the “Never-Any-Action Caucus”. Professor Karkhanis states that:

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

There are eight additional causes of action, for a total of ten. Each of them refers to this sort of silly diatribe about Professor O’Malley. The entire complaint is here and it is evident that all of these statements were satirical. I would have referred any CUNY faculty member who said to me that they really thought that Professor O’Malley wore a crown and held a scepter as “Queen of Released Time” or actually ran an al-Queda Recruitment Camp to the university's counseling center.

Analysis

There are potential dangers to freedom of speech emanating from Professor O’Malley’s decision to bring this case, so although it seems likely that she will lose, it is important to take it seriously. Arguably, the case is frivolous. However courts are not always predictable.

It is evident that Patriot Returns is and always was considered to CUNY’s own Mad Magazine. It is funny, and although I disagree with the “New Caucus” union leadership, I and likely no one else ever concluded that the Patriot's satirical claims were true. On a few occasions, based on statements in the newsletter, I contacted the union leadership such as Steve London and Barbara Bowen for further details, and they did not choose to reply.

College professors don’t always have common sense, but they are not complete idiots. An audience of college professors is able to discern satire from fact. Also, the PSC has far more resources than Professor Karkhanis, while Professor O'Malley has the same, and both the PSC and Professor O'Malley could have responded openly through ordinary internal communication processes to any accusations. I do not recall receiving any communications from Professor O'Malley, although I have met her several times.

Along these lines, Professor O’Malley openly stated to the Sun's Annie Karni (kudos, Annie) that this is a “silly” case. As well, Karkhanis presents evidence in the form of minutes of the senate meeting that Professor O’Malley in fact made the comments he alleges. There is little debate about the underlying fact that Professor O’Malley has repeatedly and openly supported left wing kooks. The questions that the complaint raise focus on satirical hyperbole. In political discourse, should free speech be infringed? The New Caucus and the Professional Staff Congress think so. I disagree with them.

Arguably, by virtue of her becoming an ex-officio member of the Board of Trustees of CUNY, Chair of the University Faculty Senate, Executive Director of the Radical Caucus of the Modern Language Association, contributor and Editor of Radical Teacher and member of the CUNY union's Executive Committee, Professor O'Malley became a public figure. I am not sure of the definition of “public figure”. I have contacted a respected labor and fiduciary duty attorney I have known for many years and posed him the question whether a union officer and/or faculty senate officer who runs for office is considered a public figure in the same sense that a public politician is. I suspect that this is an open question, and that Professor O’Malley’s case might do serious damage to the cause of free speech if it is not viewed as frivolous.

As well, there is a serious question whether the kind of freedom of speech that applies to public discourse applies to private universities. As a public university CUNY is subject to the same First Amendment rules as apply to public discourse, in which case officials ought to be treated the same as they are ordinarily, although this is not certain. As a union officer and head of the faculty senate Professor O’Malley might be construed as a public official, but are these roles really public? I would hope that the answer is yes, but if Professor O’Malley has intended to institute additional avenues for suppression in American universities, she has been creative in selecting this avenue.

My opinion about the “John and Jane Doe’ defendants is that Professor O’Malley is reaching. In my conversations with Professor Karkhanis he never once mentioned a coauthor. In fact, the very use of the “John and Jane Doe” are a kind of legal slur. Perhaps Professor O’Malley is thinking that other satirist, Alfred E. Neuman, is John Doe.

In summary, Professor O’Malley probably has no case. If she does, it is one more stake in the heart of academic freedom and of universities. Clearly, she attempts to use the legal system to intimidate Professor Karkhanis. She does not want Professor Karkhanis to continue his writing of the Patriot to benefit of the PSC’s radical leadership.

Karkhanis Defends Against Professional Staff Congress's Attack on Academic Freedom

The latest issue of Sharad Karkhanis's Patriot Returns features a letter from Fred Brodzinski and Stephen Peter Russell alleging that the City University of New York's incompetent union, the Professional Staff Congress, may have violated union election procedures:

"It seems that the merry krew at Bowen's Broadway Bunker may have been tampering with pending elections for HEO alternate representatives to the Delegate Assembly. Rather than putting forward the names of candidates who took the trouble to attend a nominating meeting, the New Caucus seems simply to have made up their own slate. Another example of democracy, "Dear Leader" style, perhaps?"

Karkhanis writes an assuring letter to union President Bowen:

"Let me say that I am deeply, deeply sorry if there was any misunderstanding between us regarding my absolute and undying loyalty to the New Caucus Party and the Professional Staff Congress (not that I would ever imply of course that there should be ANY difference between the two)....And how can I NOT give monumental thanks to First Vice President Steve London, the modern day Prometheus of the American Labor movement, for his great gift of unwavering loyalty and dedication to the Party."

In response to Karkhanis's anti-Professional Staff Congress newsletter, the PSC leadership, via PSC lackey "Sue" O'Malley, has filed a law suit, O'Malley v. Karkhanis. Karkhanis notes that:

"The sum of $2,000,000 is being sought in monetary damages, as is a permanent injunction prohibiting Professor Karkhanis from "making, printing, publishing and distributing wrongful statements" regarding Professor O'Malley in the future."

"Karkhanis's supporters have set up a website, freespeechcuny,. According to the site,

"On Friday, November 9th, attorneys representing Sharad Karkhanis filed, on his behalf, a formal notice of appearance in the case, along with a demand for a complaint, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. This filing compels Susan O'Malley and her attorney to file her formal complaint, setting out in detail the factual basis for her claims, within 20 days."

The Free Speech CUNY website also defends Karkhanis's allegation that "Sue" O'Malley has supported terrorists:

"Lest anyone assume that Emeritus Professor Sharad Karkhanis has pulled his comments from thin air, the records of CUNY’s University Faculty Senate provide ample evidence to the contrary. At the April 5, 2005 plenary session of the UFS, chaired by Professor “Sue” O’Malley, the following resolution was passed:

"...We deplore the denial of due process for adjuncts in two recent cases, which in effect denies them academic freedom:

"We deplore the decision by the Central Administration of CUNY to remove Mohammed Yousry* in April 2002 from his post as an adjunct in Political Science at York College. Our disagreement with the Central Administration's decision in no way trivializes the federal charges against him, but addresses the Chancellery's refusal to initiate formal proceedings and to accord Mr. Yousry due process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and all legal processes are exhausted.

"We deplore the exclusion of Susan Rosenberg from any further teaching at John Jay College of Criminal Justice as a result of a decision in December 2004 by President Jeremy Travis in response to complaints by a police fraternal organization and without appropriate faculty consultation. President Travis offered no academic grounds for the exclusion, and his decision compromises the long-held academic tradition of faculty self-governance in selecting who shall teach and what shall be taught....

*On February 10, 2005 Yousry was indicted in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, along with attorney Lynne Stewart and Ahmed Abdel Sattar, of conspiring to provide, and providing, material support to terrorism and conspiring to defraud the U.S. government, and was convicted. According to an article in The Nation, Yousry was originally scheduled to be sentenced in September 2006, but he was actually sentenced on Monday, October 16, 2006 to one year and eight months, as reported by CNN in an article that has disappeared from their archives, but which can still be read in the version cached by Google.

Judge Judy's Producer Sends out Feelers Re O'Malley v. Karkhanis

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Free Speech For Sharad

Phil Orenstein has written an excellent blog about the O'Malley v. Karkhanis case. Phil argues that the PSC aims to silence Sharad and so has encouraged Sue O'Malley to sue. Indeed, the PSC has refused my repeated efforts to arrange for a Judge Judy hearing of the case.

The PSC's attempt to suppress speech and academic freedom is met with indifference by the American Association of University Professors, whom I have contacted about the case (they haven't responded). Phil notes:

(Sharad's newsletter The Patriot Returns) has carefully documented the PSC leadership’s pursuit of revolution instead of their jobs, elaborating on their campaigns to devote more time and resources to future global crusades. This includes such activities as mobilizing the membership to protest the Republican Party at the Republican National Convention in New York. Additionally, the PSC has passed a resolution sympathizing with Hugo Chavez, sponsored a conference called Educators to Stop the War, calling for teachers to develop an anti-war curriculum. The PSC leadership has organized and funded New York City Labor Against the War and Labor for Palestine, donated $5000 to support the legal defense of Lori Berenson, in prison for helping Peruvian Marxist terrorists, and donated...(on behalf of) Sami Al-Arian convicted of conspiracy to aid terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad. According to TPR, the PSC even hosts an “International Committee” replete with a foreign policy spokesperson, who has issued public statements against economic and military aid to Israel and a statement condemning the war in Afghanistan, “joining in solidarity with the victims of U.S. military power,” namely the Taliban. The New York Sun, reported that while the leaders of the PSC have been running amok in politics, their union failed to deliver a new contract and in the past five years the member’s health and welfare fund reserves fell by 97% “with only a trickle of money remaining for faculty members' prescription drug, dental, and medical insurance plans.”

As Phil outlines, the leadership of the Professional Staff Congress are left wing extremists who oppose academic freedom and aim to suppress all who disagree with their reactionary and incompetent left wing views. I have heard that although O'Malley has publicly described her case as silly or frivolous in a New York Sun article, the courts will be willing to waste the taxpayers' money in this transparent attempt at suppression of a union member by a union leadership.

O'Malley v. Karkhanis in the New York Post

Dareh Gregorian has written an article in the New York Post about Susan O'Malley's lawsuit against Sharad Karkhanis (also see earthtimes.org coverage here). While the article is a good one (see below), Gregorian fails to ask a few critical questions:

(1) Why haven't O'Malley and her attorney contacted the producers of Judge Judy, which is a more appropriate venue for a case that O'Malley herself describes as "silly" than is the New York State Supreme Court?

(2) Why are the people of the state of New York being asked to subsidize a case that the plaintiff describes as "silly"? Here are the synonyms of "frivolous" from dictonary.com :

barmy*, childish, dizzy*, empty-headed*, facetious, featherbrained*, flighty, flip, flippant, foolish, fribble, frothy, gay, giddy*, harebrained*, idiotic, idle, ill-considered, impractical, juvenile, light, light-minded, minor, niggling*, nonserious, not serious, paltry, peripheral, petty, playful, pointless, puerile, scatterbrained*, senseless, shallow, silly, sportive, superficial, tongue-in-cheek*, trivial, unimportant, unprofound, volatile, whimsical

(3) Why is the Professional Staff Congress unable to provide a dispute resolution mechanism that will spare the public the cost of resolving this "silly" dispute through the courts?

(4) One of the chief justifications of unionism is the provision of low-cost dispute resolution mechanisms. If unions like the Professional Staff Congress utilize the court system as a dispute resolution method of first resort, can such unions be justified from the standpoint of public policy?

(5) Has the Professional Staff Congress ever established guidelines for competent hiring?



CUNY PROF WAR
LIBEL SUIT OVER 'TERROR'
By DAREH GREGORIAN
November 5, 2007 -- A CUNY professor has filed a $2 million lawsuit against a fellow Ph.D. who's been lambasting her for allegedly trying to "recruit terrorists" to teach within the City University system.

In papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, Susan O'Malley charges that professor emeritus Sharad Karkhanis defamed her by accusing her of having an "obsession with finding jobs for terrorists" in recent issues of a newsletter he's been e-mailing to CUNY faculty members for 15 years.

Citing O'Malley's efforts to land jobs for convicted activist lawyer Lynne Stewart's co-defendant Mohammed Yousry and former Weather Underground member Susan Rosenberg, Karkhanis wrote:

"Has Queen O'Malley ever made a 'Job Wanted' announcement like this for a nonconvicted, nonviolent, peace-loving American educator for a job in CUNY? . . . Why does she prefer convicted terrorists bent on harming our people and our nation over peace-loving Americans?"

The retired Kingsborough Community College political-science professor said O'Malley, an English professor there, "is recruiting naive . . . faculty into her Qaeda-Camp to infiltrate . . . 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."

O'Malley believes the terrorist-recruiter claim to be libelous. But an unapologetic Karkhanis, 73, told The Post: "Give me a break. I'm going to fight this vigorously."

He added that he considers what he wrote to be satire but that he was also "raising questions I believe are appropriate."

He said O'Malley crossed the line when she tried to land a job for Yousry, who's out on bail pending appeal of his conviction for helping Stewart disseminate messages from 1993 World Trade Center bomb plotter Omar Abdel-Rahman.

O'Malley, on leave from CUNY, could not be reached for comment.

dareh.gregorian@nypost.com

Academic Freedom or Anti-Semitism?

Daniel Klimek and Victor Lang of the left-wing DePaul Academic Freedom Committee have forwarded a press release concerning their academic freedom conference to be held on October 12 at the University of Chicago. The conference will be open to the public. Apparently, it is not enough that the academic left has squelched conservatives' speech; banned conservatives from the academy; and thrown conservative students out of college. In addition, Klimek and Lang demand that any and every failed left wing anti-Semite deserves tenure.

Klimek and Lang are leading the charge to insist that Norman Finkelstein be given tenure. Competent conservatives are routinely ejected from the academy but Klimek, Lang and their fellow neo-German romantics take no notice and do not see any "academic freedom" issue. But when Finkelstein, who is worse than incompetent as a scholar, is deservedly denied tenure Klimek, Lang and the usual list of neo-German romantics complain that there has been a grievous violation of academic freedom.

Previously, Brooklyn College alum and eminent legal scholar Alan Dershowitz has written about Norman Finkelstein in Frontpagemag. Dershowitz's article begins:

"The level of “academic” discourse on the Middle-East reached a new low—quite a feat considering some of the old lows—when the notorious Jewish anti-Semite and Holocaust-justice denier Norman Finkelstein wrote a screed suggesting that I be targeted “for assassination” because of my views on Israel. The obscene article was accompanied by an obscene cartoon drawn by “Latuff”, a frequent accomplice of Finkelstein. The cartoon portrayed me as masturbating in rapturous joy while viewing images of dead Lebanese civilians on a TV set labeled “Israel peep show,” with a Jewish Star of David prominently featured."

The DePaul Academic Freedom Committee's press release follows:

IN DEFENSE OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM”
PROMINENT SCHOLARS TO SPEAK OUT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
12 October 2007 - 2:00pm - 7:00 pm
Rockefeller Chapel, University of Chicago

October 12 2007 lecture featuring: Tariq Ali, Akeel Bilgrami, Noam Chomsky, Neve Gordon, Tony Judt and John Mearsheimer

CHICAGO, IL – In light of the controversial tenure denials of eminent Middle East scholar Dr. Norman G. Finkelstein and Dr. Mehrene Larudee earlier this year at DePaul University, the most prominent scholars from across the world will come together this Friday, October 12, 2007, at a conference at the University of Chicago to speak lecturing about the threats to academic freedom at universities.

Professors Finkelstein and Larudee were both denied tenure at DePaul last June for political purposes. After not being allowed to teach his terminal year at DePaul, Finkelstein and the university settled on an agreement in September, when Finkelstein resigned and DePaul acknowledged him to be “a prolific scholar and an outstanding teacher.” Professor Larudee, who was a strong supporter of both Finkelstein and Palestinian rights, is currently appealing her case at DePaul. Both scholars will also appear as panelists at the October 12 conference.

The event is to be held at the Rockefeller Chapel, 5850 S. Woodlawn Ave. Chicago, IL 60637. Scheduled speakers include:

- Dr. Akeel Bilgrami, Johnsonian Professor of Philosophy and Director of The Heyman Center, Columbia University
- Dr. Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor & Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus), Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- Dr. Norman Finkelstein, (formerly) Department of Political Science, DePaul University
- Dr. John Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago
- Dr. Neve Gordon, Professor, Department of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University
- Dr. Tony Judt, University Professor and Director of the Remarque Institute, New York University
- Dr. Mehrene Larudee, International Studies Program, DePaul University
• Hosted by Tariq Ali, Editor of the New Left Review and Verso Books

The Event is Sponsored By:

Primary Sponsors

Diskord Magazine (University of Chicago, RSO), Verso Books (London), and Academic Freedom Committee (DePaul)

Co-Sponsors
University of Chicago: Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Center for International Studies, and International House Global Voices Program*
DePaul University: International Studies Program, Islamic World Studies Program, and Department of Philosophy*
Community Sponsors
Jewish Voice for Peace - Chicago, American Friends Service Committee – Chicago, and Committee for a Just Peace in Israel and Palestine (CJPIP)
*The University of Chicago and DePaul University are not sponsoring the event, only the listed departments and centers at these Universities.

Queen of Collegiality: O'Malley Threatens Karkhanis with Law Suit

Professor Susan O'Malley has simultaneously served as an officer of CUNY's faculty union, the Professional Staff Congress, and also as president of the CUNY faculty senate. In the two roles, which seem to conflict (faculty senate = employer; faculty union = employee representative), Professor O'Malley took a public position on the promotion application of Professor KC Johnson. This seemed to me not only inappropriate, but a breach of her fiduciary duty to Professor Johnson. I raised this issue with New York's Public Employee Relations Board, but New York's PERB was not interested even though the Taylor Law specifically prohibits management-dominated unions.

Professor Johnson ultimately won his promotion on appeal, and he is now probably the best (or one of a few best) known author(s) at Brooklyn College, with his recent book Until Proven Innocent. At the time of his promotion battle Johnson had much better credentials than most of the faculty deciding his case, yet the issue of Johnson's "collegiality" was the academic Babbitts' rallying cry. Professor O'Malley was one of those criticizing Professor Johnson.

One would therefore expect Professor O'Malley to attempt to resolve her ongoing conflict with Professor Karkhanis in a "collegial" manner. Perhaps she might write a letter to Karkhanis; invite him out for lunch; or ask Karkhanis to serve on an academic committee. But no, Professor O'Malley's definition of "collegiality" is: if someone disagrees with you, then try to fire them (Johnson). If that doesn't work, send them a lawyer's letter (Karkhanis).

O'Malley's actions once again demonstrate that those who raise issues of "collegiality" in faculty personnel committees are often vicious liars who aim to deflect their true, defamatory intent.

The website of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education reports that:

"CUNY professor and former chair of the Faculty Senate Susan O’Malley was the subject of a few issues of The Patriot Returns last spring. In the March 12 issue of The Patriot Returns, Karkhanis wrote an article called “MOHAMMED ON HER MIND!,” with the subheading, “O’MALLEY’S OBSESSION WITH FINDING JOBS FOR TERRORISTS.” Karkhanis refers in that issue to O’Malley’s attempt, at a Faculty Senate meeting, to find a job at CUNY for Mohammed Yousry, who was convicted of conspiring in the plot to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993. Citing Faculty Senate meeting minutes, Karkhanis wrote that O’Malley “was not going to rest until she got this convicted terrorist a job.” Karkhanis was not the only one to criticize O’Malley—FIRE Adviser and Phi Beta Cons contributor Candace de Russy blogged about O’Malley’s advocacy for hiring Yousry and about Karkhanis’ coverage on March 26"

The letter alleges that Karkhanis's remarks about O'Malley are defamatory, yet O'Malley is a tenured academic likely nearing retirement who is likely entitled to a hefty, low-tier CUNY pension (the earlier cohorts of CUNY faculty enjoyed much more generous pensions than the later ones). Since there are no damages, the only purpose of a law suit is to suppress Karkhanis's speech and to intimidate him. The law suit threat is not only evidence of O'Malley's lack of collegiality, but her intent to suppress all who disagree with her left-wing views.