"What Faculty Unionism Really Accomplishes

My op-ed "What Faculty Unionism ReallyAccomplishes" appears today on The John William Pope Center for Higher Education policy Commentaries website at

http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=3343

My Article on Harris v. Quinn and the CUNY Faculty Union in Frontpagemag

My article "Time to Rethink Government Unions" appears in the current issue of  Frontpagemag. I had researched the material about the CUNY faculty union several months earlier, and the Supreme Court's Harris v. Quinn decision on June 30 gave me a context in which to embed the CUNY material. I relied on interviews with David Seidemann and an anonymous officer of the PSC who gave me reams of information about the bizarre goings-on at the PSC Delegate Assembly and Executive Council meetings. The most striking phenomenon I observed during my research was the PSC leadership's omertà. The unwillingness to talk to me extended to the out-group led by former candidate Richard Boris and retired union president Irwin Polishook. 

Especially boorish was Stanley Aronowitz, who agreed to be interviewed by phone at specific times, yet when I called at those times he didn't answer.  He didn't four times.  The PSC's leadership advocates a suppressive ideology, socialism, so it's not surprising that they don't refrain from using violence to take money from members, using the money in violation of the members' free speech rights, and then covering up their actions.  Cover-ups are only problematic when Republicans engage in them.

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.  

PSC Bungles Rangel's Tangle

Sharad Karkhanis's Patriot Returns just published my article "PSC Bungles Rangel's Tangle."

The Professional Staff Congress (PSC), a union that purports to represent CUNY's faculty, has allowed City College's (CCNY's) public relations calamity involving the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service to spin out of control without voicing the slightest concern or faculty perspective. CCNY's ethical and public relations breaches are attracting national attention while the PSC pontificates about a litany of dogmatic pieties concerning the Afghan War, the Bush administration, the Iraqi War, the Tea Party and the Republicans' sub-prime lending policies. Likely, the PSC's flower child president, Barbara Bowen, and her New Caucus band of Merry Pranksters find potential ethics breaches at CCNY as too "off the bus" to warrant their time, which they see as best spent praising sociopaths like Hugo Chavez, Syed Hashmi and Sami Al-Arian.

In an August 10th article, Inside Higher Education writes that CCNY exercised questionable ethics with respect to Congressman Rangel's fundraising. Paulette Maehara of the Association of Fundraising Professionals says that "higher education fund-raisers are ethically bound to disclose conflicts of interest and they should also ensure anyone working on their behalf is similarly free of conflict." Not all experts agree. Moreover, the article points out that CUNY's fundraising policies do not prohibit obtaining gifts unethically. But it requires a fetishization of bureaucratic rules and an indifference to bad ethics to claim that a CUNY policy gave former CCNY president Gregory Williams and his staff latitude to entangle the university in Congressman Rangel's corruption. The New York Post began reporting on this story in 2007. It involves use of Congressional letterhead to raise millions of dollars from Verizon, AIG, New York Life and Nabors Industries, all of whom were asking for quid pro quo legislative favors from Mr. Rangel, possibly while CCNY's representatives were in the same room.

Ought not a faculty union provide a moral voice for the faculty it purports to represent? And if so, why is the PSC deafeningly silent about Democratic Congressman Charles B. Rangel's corrupt "monument to himself" at CCNY? Instead of honoring dishonorable politicians who serve in the PSC's partisan clubhouse, the Charles B. Rangel Center and its associated conference centers and libraries ought to be renamed as the Centers for the Study of Ethics in Public Service. As well, CCNY should refuse Mr. Rangel's papers. If Riker's Island has no room for them, perhaps Mr. Rangel can strong arm a donation for a new wing to its jailhouse.

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.

Republican Excitement Grows

My in-box is overflowing with messages from friends about a number of developments, bad and good. My neighbor, a life long Democrat, just sent me this message about the Democrats' and Obama's yucky health care reform courtesy of Newsmax:

>Dear Reader:

>Time is critical. Americans all over the country are fed up with the Obama administration. They don't want his radical healthcare program.

Citizens from states like Massachusetts, Nebraska, Florida and others are rising up as never before.

Even in liberal states such as Massachusetts citizens are showing their outrage over the Obama-Pelosi-Reid alliance and it's dismal record at creating jobs and inability to protect us against terrorism...

...You can help this effort by Going Here Now.

The site to which you are directed shows this video:



The famously dynamic and lovely Raquel Okyay, congressional candidate and leader of southern Ulster County, reminds us that:

>A win on Tuesday for Scott Brown, needless to say, will be a big win for the Republican party and a win for those of us fighting against healthcare "reform".

I urge you to do whatever you can to help Scott Brown win.

>Read my commentary here.

In her blog Raquel notes:

>One does not have to be a political mastermind to see what is happening in America today. Glenn Beck’s claim that the Obama administration’s goal is to transform the Nation in a way that mirrors Hugo Chavez’ take- over of Venezuela, indeed, has validity. The amount of government control and over the top spending that the Obama White house and the Democrat controlled Congress have assumed in one year is unprecedented and will take many years to salvage...

>State Senator Scott Brown is running his campaign against “wasteful government spending and higher taxes.”

>...The American people are angry that the President promised that these negotiations would be aired on C-span at least eight times on the campaign trail, and so far, nothing. No one really knows what the final bill will entail, but everyone knows it will raise health insurance costs, and it will ration care.

Phil Orenstein, up and coming party leader of Queens County, New York forwarded a link to the Go West Blog, which "proudly supports Lt. Col. Allen West's candidacy for Congress." West is running in Florida and is a wonderful candidate.

Glenda McGee attended the Kingston, NY Tea Party meeting on Monday night and George Phillips's announcement of his congressional candidacy yesterday. McGee is fighting cap and trade and keeps getting her photo on newspaper covers. One article was about the Tea Party from Oklahoma and they put her picture on the cover even though she lives in the Town of Olive!

Even President Barbara Bowen of the left wing faculty union of the City University of New York, the Professional Staff Congress, and her lieutenant Mariah Berger, have sent around e-mails urging the union's left-to-liberal college faculty membership to make calls in opposition to the bogus health care bill's tax on union benefit plans:

>Dear Professor Langbert,

>Thank you for your response. In her email yesterday President Bowen urged PSC members to take action in support of fair health care reform and in opposition to the proposal to tax “Cadillac” health plans. This position on health care reform is that of the union as a collective, after debate, discussion and a democratic vote. We understand that not all individual members share these sentiments, however, and we appreciate your comments. We respect and value your views and Barbara Bowen thanks you for taking the time to share them.

>Sincerely,

>Moriah Berger

That e-mail really tickled me. I doubt that there are more than ten unions more left wing than the Professional Staff Congress. I also doubt that there was a higher Obama-to-McCain voting ratio in any union in the country than in the Professional Staff Congress. But even the Grasmcian Marxists are complaining about Obama now.

Here is the union president's, Barbara Bowen's, e-mail:

>Dear Colleague,

Today is the labor movement’s National Call-In Blitz to demand fairness to working people in health care legislation. I am asking you to take a minute or two to call your US Representative and Senator today. The AFL-CIO’s call-in line will connect you immediately: 1-877-323-5246. Tell your representative that you support fair health care reform but that you oppose the plan for a 40 percent excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” health plans.

Taxing benefits is bad policy and bad politics. Benefit cuts and increased consumer costs are NOT health care reform.

The Senate bill would impose an excise tax paid by employers on benefit plans exceeding $23,000 for family coverage and $8,500 for individuals. CUNY faculty and staff would not be immediately affected by the proposed excise tax, as our current healthcare benefits fall below the threshold in the Senate bill. But the benefits tax is designed to apply to more plans, and more people, every year. The cap on benefits grows much more slowly than the rate of medical inflation. A plan under the cap today could easily be over the cap tomorrow and subject to a 40 percent excise tax. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 20% of employee health plans would be affected within 3 years.

The theory underlying this provision is that employers will reduce benefits to avoid paying the excise tax and presumably pay their employees the balance that would have gone to insurance. These increased wages, taxed as regular income, would be used to finance health reform. Assuming employers would voluntarily pass on savings to their workers—a long shot at best—the most likely result will be a reduction in the quality of employee health benefits.

This is a critical week for influencing the final shape of the legislation. PSC members, like millions of other Americans, hoped and fought for single-payer health reform. But this is our chance to make the current bill as fair as we can make it. Please call or email today: http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/healthcare010810.

We are now closer to reform than we’ve been in generations. We can’t stop now.

In solidarity,
Barbara Bowen
President

Sharad Karkhanis Exposes Incompetence at the Professional Staff Congress

I just received this e-mail from Sharad Karkhanis's Patriot Returns site.

>Nine years ago, many PSC members had expectations that the New Caucus management of Barbara Bowen and Steven London would bring fresh energy, new ideas and direction to the competent but slow pace of activity under former PSC president Irwin Polishook. This was however followed by a rude awakening and very big DISAPPOINTMENT.

Instead of a real union, what they got in the Bowen/London New Caucus group was a militant political junta unconcerned with members' needs.

The experience of the past nine years clearly demonstrates that the Bowen/London group has led us to unprecedented disaster in Welfare Fund coverage and further disaster regarding negotiated contracts for members.

They have spent more time and more of our dues money trying to conduct United States foreign policy than they have negotiating, implementing or enforcing the contract.

They have spent more time, more energy and more of our dues money on demonstrations, parades and pickets than any other comparably-sized union in the City of New York, to no avail in terms of benefit to its members. New York City law enforcement has been required to dissipate valuable time and resources guarding these sheep in demonstrators' clothing while we members foot the bills in terms of out-of-pocket cost and loss of credibility.

These nonsensical demonstrations, including the one in front of the Chancellor's home (Click here) have served to render CUNY professional staff a laughing stock.

Expenditure of dues money on breakfasts, lunches, T-shirts, baseball caps and buses for demonstrations in Washington and Pennsylvania is highly irresponsible and wasteful of union members' dues money.

The Bowen/London gang have donated your money to such terrorists as Lori Berenson and Sami Al-Arian.

During their nine-year reign, the New Caucus group has presided over very significant reduction in prescription drug benefits. And they have so dissipated our previously-good dental coverage that it is today nearly non-existent.

They bankrupted the Welfare Fund and then re-funded it by co-opting our duly-deserved retroactive pay!

While UUP (the SUNY union) and UFT (the Teachers' union) achieved significant contractual gains, the Bowen/London New Caucus did not even get us salary increases approaching the increase in the cost of living. Our salaries have thus effectively decreased!

A group which hires a convicted felon as its house attorney and pays him handsomely from your dues money is irresponsible. Nor is it a group which cares for its members' grievances and complaints. Past issues of The Patriot are replete with stories of New Caucus misdeeds and misbehavior in the arena of grievance, all at your expense.

We at The Patriot yearn for a new beginning, for a new leadership whose motto will be "Members First." Contract negotiations, contract implementation and contract enforcement will constitute its primary responsibilities coupled with focus on improved welfare benefits and such political activity on State and local levels as is necessary to advance those causes which directly benefit members.

We deserve a union with focus on legitimate economic and professional concerns of its members, not one which wastes, month after month, the time of its elected delegates on discussion and passage of resolutions on international conflicts and every-social-issue-under-the-sun.

We have had enough.
We have endured enough.
We have suffered enough.
It is time to elect new leadership.
It's time for a real union, one with pragmatic focus on members' needs.

MEMBERS COME FIRST!

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

As you know, Susan O'Malley has sought to silence the Patriot by bringing a lawsuit which seeks to limit his free speech and financially bankrupt him. Interested colleagues have weighed in at
www.freespeechcuny.blogspot.com

Sharad Karkhanis Liberates Gramscian Union

The leadership of the Professional Staff Congress (PSC) has been preoccupied with a Gramscian strategy of occupation of American cultural institutions, specifically the City University of New York, in order to further its progressive end of culturally dominating New York City's college students. Initially funded by international banking interests, namely one of George Soros's foundations, the PSC leadership believes and claims that it is pursuing a radical "New Left" agenda ("new" is hardly the word, being 40 or 50 years old by now). But just as Morgan banker (and executive of International Harvester) George W. Perkins was Theodore Roosevelt's economic adviser and chief backer when TR ran as a socialistic, "Progressive" candidate in 1912, George Soros finances various left wing advocacy groups who are his dupes and marionettes and that serve the reactionary interests of international finance. The leadership of the Professional Staff Congress, the faculty union of the City University of New York, falls into this category.

The courageous Sharad Karkhanis has stood alone against the Professional Staff Congress's aim of cultural hegemony.

In a recent e-mail Karkhanis notes that although New York and the City University face significant budget cuts because of Wall Street's malaise, the leadership of the PSC has done nothing to attempt to manage the coming budget crisis. Might the problem be that, according to Karkhanis, the PSC is raising dues even as it obtained the worst union contract in New York compared to any other public sector union for the past 50 years? If we get 40% of the raise that the New York City teachers get, shouldn't our dues be 40% of what the teachers pay?

Karkhanis notes that, just as George Soros advocates a "closed society", claiming that he is for an "open society", his lackeys at the PSC refuse to make information about union operations public even as they criticize the CUNY administration for lack of disclosure:

"The Chancellor's Report has complete listings of appointments, promotions and other information about you and me. But we never know who makes what at the union office. Neither do we know the exact amount of released time given to their people, including PSC officers. What are Barbara and Steve paying themselves in summer salary, stipends and travel? Do we know their travel budget? Have they reduced expenses on food orders for breakfasts, lunches, dinners, hats, t-shirts, travel for demonstrators, marchers and hangers-on? Does every meeting and gathering have to include elaborate food? Is it not time for them to place this information on the PSC website?"

This skirting of law in the name of the union's being a private institution flies in the face of the union's claim of an exemption from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which they base on their claim that they are a public institution. It seems that the PSC leadership has managed to find a way to be both a public agency to avoid regulation and a private organization, also to avoid regulation, at the same time.

Kharkhanis states that despite the coming budget cuts, the only resolution that the union leadership has published in the past year has concerned striking workers at a Stella D'Oro bakery in the Bronx:

"PSC Executive Council Resolutions are not posted after 2003. Are we to understand that the Executive Council conducted all its business for the past five years without ever passing any resolution? Perhaps, we may as well abolish the Executive Council."

Moreover, like their master, George Soros, the PSC leadership looks out for itself first. According to Karkhanis:

"(President) Bowen screams in the Clarion (the union newsletter) about the fat salaries of the Chancellor and of College Presidents. But have we ever been told how much money Bowen, London, Fabricant and DeSola make? They get CUNY salaries, PSC stipends, summer pay, travel and food money, and have PSC credit cards. What are they paid for sitting on the NYSUT board? What is Barbara's additional salary from AFT? Does she tell you how much (sic) time she spends on PSC related business and how much time she and sidekick London spend on scheming, planning, organizing and demonstrating?"

It seems to me that unfair labor exploitation of CUNY faculty has raised its ugly head.

Adjuncts Angry with CUNY Faculty Union While Leadership Defends Terrorists

The part-time faculty or adjuncts in American universities are mostly second class citizens. They are paid modestly (often around $3,500 for an entire 3-4 month semester class involving about 140 hours of work). They usually do not receive benefits. At the City University of New York (CUNY) they receive some benefits, but these are much poorer than full time faculty benefits. Many teach 5-6 classes per semester. It isn't a great arrangement. CUNY, like many universities, hires a large proportion of the faculty in an adjunct role. This keeps costs down but limits the richness of intellectual life on campus (the day when universities were associated with intellectual life is gone).

Sharad Karkhanis blogs that Barbara Bowen, president of the faculty union, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC), had e-mailed faculty inviting them to write the reasons for their vote on a proposed contract onto a Web page, but did not publish the Web page until almost after the balloting was over.

Taking the side of the adjuncts, Karkhanis argues:

"While details are still forthcoming, (the) tentative settlement clearly perpetuates the two-tier labor system we are living under...The two-tier system weakens all of us, and the union as a whole."

A group of adjuncts has protested the reluctance of the union leadership to allow them to debate the new contract, which fails to live up to expectations that the union leadership created for adjuncts. One adjunct writes:

"At no point was the opportunity taken to include our one-page statement arguing the opposing view on the contract (which actually could have saved time as well as resources)."

Another writes:

"If you think adjuncts, Continuing Ed teachers and others left in the lurch yet again are "outraged," you're certainly right. Plenty feel kicked in the teeth, which might explain their silence on the DA list today."

The PSC leadership has devoted much of its time to political and public policies issues and has failed at the bargaining table. Politics and labor negotiation should intersect tangentially. The current leadership of the Professional Staff Congress is obsessed with the Iraqi War and with subsidizing terrorists.

Bowen's Boondoggle

According to Sarah Garland of the New York Sun, in 2006, the New York City schoolteachers negotiated a contract that will expire in 2009. The contract gave the teachers a 7.1% annual raise over 2008-2009.

The Sun quotes the United Federation of Teachers' President Randi Weingarten:

"Pointing to a total increase in teacher salaries of more than 40% since 2002, Ms. Weingarten said, "Finally we are making real progress."

In contrast to 40% gains in teacher salaries, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC), the union that represents the faculty of the City University of New York, in the last contract that ran from 2004 to 2007 negotiated a 6% increase over three years.

On June 23, 2008 Barbara Bowen, the PSC president, released a letter describing a new contract that runs from 2007 to 2010. It includes the following increases:

****3.15%, effective September 20, 2007
****4.00%, effective October 6, 2008
****3.00%, effective October 20, 2009

In other words, the Barbara Bowen and the PSC negotiated increases at about half of what New York City's schoolteachers received. And this on top of increases less than half of what the schoolteachers received in the last contract as well. In comparison to the 40% from 2002-9, the PSC has won 16% from 2004-10, about 40% of what the teachers have won.

Despite this dismal performance President Bowen writes in her letter:

"The tentative contract is a principled, creative settlement that combines increases throughout the salary scale with special increases at the top and the bottom. It includes a breakthrough on parental and family care, introduces a system for sharing sick days with those in need, adds a hundred new Lecturer lines reserved for experienced part-time faculty, and holds the line against management's agenda of corporatizing the University. The tentative settlement also includes new equity features, such as a salary differential for College Laboratory Technicians and Assistants to HEO with relevant masters or doctoral degrees, and an extra increase in each step of the Lecturer title. The tentative agreement comes with the strong support of the PSC negotiating committee."

Just a few days before the deal's announcement, the indomitable Sharad Karkhanis in his Patriot Returns newsletter expressed dismay at the union leadership's performance; its inept management; and governmental officials' indifference to the union leadership. He exhorts Bowen:

The PSC's propaganda paper (Clarion) boasts of your trips to Albany and your meetings with the mighty and powerful. But it seems to us that all this is baloney. Neither the New York media nor government authorities consider you relevant or powerful. You can be safely ignored, laughed at, forgotten. We wouldn't care, except that also forgotten, as a consequence, are the people you represent. No wonder you cannot get a good contract for CUNY faculty. Your tactics have deemed you irrelevant to the real media and those in decision making positions in the state. You are a failure in the eyes of the membership. They will not return you to that office again next year, Barbara.

For how long will the CUNY faculty be willing to tolerate the PSC leadership's incompetence?

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.

Chronicle of Higher Ed on Seidemann Case

I sent out a small press release concerning David Seidemann's victory in district court against the leadership of the Professional Staff Congress (PSC). Reporter David Glenn of the Chronicle of Higher Education called to thank me for the information and the story ran today (paid access). The article is accurate and even handed. David Glenn's reporting is excellent.

In addition to sending out the press release I had invited Barbara Bowen, Nancy Romer, Steve London, Stanley Aronowitz and several other members of PSC's administration office to comment on my last blog on the recent ruling, but none has responded.

The article points out that Dorothee Benz, a union employee, claims that

"the 'vast majority' of the disputed spending has been allocated to lobbying campaigns to encourage state and local governments to provide financial support to the university, not on political causes that have nothing to do with professors' wages or benefits."

However, this is misleading for two reasons. First, there have been considerable "soft money" activities by the union leadership involving Iraqi War protests, demonstrations and conferences. The leadership is paid salaries to participate in these activities. To be fair, agency dues payments should be reduced by the proportion that salaries for the union leadership's time spent on such political activites bears to the union's total budget. Second, lobbying typically involves political as well as wage and benefit concerns, as Professor Seidemann points out in the article.

An additional concern is that the union has used CUNY facilities to send e-mails and used CUNY facilities to conduct meetings of a political nature. Since CUNY is a section 501(c)(3) organization, the repeated use of CUNY facilities to further the Professional Staff Congress's political goals is inappropriate and likely a breach of the tax code's requirements for charitable and educational institutions (that is, that they not be used for political purposes).

The article quotes Christopher M. Callagy, a union attorney, as saying that the union's chief political efforts are in Albany. This is a lie. The union leadership has repeatedly notified faculty of Iraqi War protests, and used their time and union resources for such protests.

Moreover, the article points out that even Albany lobbying is not considered a collective bargaining expense:

"Mr. Seidemann pointed out in an interview on Wednesday. 'Lobbying for an increased budget for education—that is a political act,' Mr. Seidemann said. ['']There may be people who think education should be supported by property taxes or should be supported totally by tuition.' Mr. Seidemann said that...he distrusts the union's management and wants to give it as little financial support as possible. "

The article adds that Professor Seidemann is continuing with a further complaint. He is asking the judge to require that the union file its financial data online on a specific date. No more Enron-style financials for the Professional Staff Congress.

Professor Seidemann has performed an important social service, and he deserves an award. However, I would argue that his case does not go far enough. The case of Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association on which Judge Lois Bloom relies in the Seidemann case assumes that agency payers may be free riders because they receive union benefits but do not contribute to the costs of negotiation. But the PSC has won no benefits for its membership. Rather, because of the PSC's incompetent negotiation stance, silly demonstrations, and adverserial approach, the union has managed to diminish faculty wages and benefits. An equitable rendering of the Lehnert decision ought to be that where unions reduce wages, agency payers should be reimbursed for their losses because of the union's incompetence. Perhaps the next step ought to be to try this case under equity principles.

Sharad Karkhanis Wins Educator of the Year

Free Speech For Sharad

For Immediate Press Release Contact: Phil Orenstein January ?, 2008 (917) 620-2663 Email: maduroman@att.net

CUNY EMERITUS PROFESSOR FIGHTING DEFAMATION LAWSUIT TO BE HONERED AS EDUCATOR OF THE YEAR

Dr. Sharad Karkhanis will be honored as the Educator of the Year for his distinguished scholarship and the courageous battle he is presently waging against an unprecedented legal assault on freedom of speech and freedom of the press in a repressive urban academic environment. The awards presented at the annual Lincoln Day Dinner at Antun’s in Queens Village, sponsored by the Queens Village Republican Club, are designed to celebrate outstanding contributions to the greater good of the New York community. The Club, the oldest GOP group in America founded in 1875, stands behind Dr. Karkhanis’s battle for his constitutional rights and has allotted 5% of each Dinner ticket sold to be donated to his defense fund, “Free Speech for Sharad” to help defray the legal bills.

The Dinner program will feature a number of noteworthy and controversial speakers and honorees besides Dr. Karkhanis. Queensborough Community College History Professor and Lincoln scholar Gerald Matacotta will revive the historical tradition of the annual Abraham Lincoln Address with a presentation bringing Lincoln’s moral principles into focus on our present day state of affairs. Queens Village resident Major Jeffery R. Calero, who perished in Afghanistan in November when an IED detonated while he was on combat patrol, will be honored posthumously with the Ultimate Sacrifice Award to be presented to his fiancée, parents and siblings. Michael P. Ricatto, successful entrepreneur and founder of Better Leadership America, which advocates for a safer and more secure America, will be receiving the Businessman of the Year Award for his passion to give back to the New York community something greater, in appreciation for the opportunities he was afforded in America. Jeffery S. Wiesenfeld, City University of New York Trustee, who advocates improving academic standards at CUNY will speak on: “The poisoning of our next generation by our academics throughout our nation.” The keynote speaker will be George J. Marlin, author and former Mayoral candidate and Director of NY and NJ Port Authorities, will address the topic: “Is there a future for New York Republicans and Conservatives.

Dr. Karkhanis Professor Emeritus of Political Science from Kingsborough Community College (KCC), is presently being sued for defamation in a $2 million lawsuit filed by fellow professor and union official, Susan O’Malley (aka: Susan Gushee O’Malley) accusing him of making recent defamatory statements in his email newsletter The Patriot Returns, 13,000 issues of which he has been regularly distributing to CUNY faculty since 1992. Dr. Karkhanis has often criticized the Professional Staff Congress (PSC), the CUNY faculty union leadership for mismanagement of funds and has lambasted Professor O’Malley for trying to land teaching jobs for convicted terrorists at CUNY, writing that she has an “obsession with finding jobs for terrorists” and is trying to “recruit terrorists” to teach within the CUNY system. The lawsuit charges that such statements are defamatory.

Ever since he first criticized her in 1995, Professor O’Malley, former chair of the University Faculty Senate (UFS) and PSC executive committee member, has been trying to silence Dr. Karkhanis, since his reporting has been hurting her re-election campaigns for union and University Faculty Senate (UFS) seats (Patriot 3/22/95). “In December, Prof. O'Malley ordered Sharad to stop the publication of the Patriot. Does Prof. O'Malley realize that KCC Campus is neither the Gulag of Marxist Russia nor is it a Nazi concentration camp…understand that Sharad is a free man - free to speak, free to write, free to talk to anyone… There is nothing you can or anyone else can do about this.” (Patriot 3/19/96)

In 1997 Dr. Karkhanis received two death threats at KCC, which he believed to be coming from a faculty member of KCC or CUNY who wants to shut down the Patriot. The FBI launched an investigation and campus security protected him while on campus and he had the service of a bodyguard whenever he went off campus.

In the April 2000 CUNY union elections the “New Caucus” took control of the PSC, and the Patriot has been their watchdog ever since. The Patriot exposed the leadership’s excessive involvement in political activities, funding radical causes and supporting the legal defense of convicted terrorists and criminals with the member’s dues, while the union Welfare Fund that members rely upon for medical benefits nearly vanished. The Patriot reported, “under New Caucus stewardship the WF Reserves have dropped from $15,000,000 to below $2,000,000.” The PSC leadership has organized and funded such radical pressure groups as, “New York City Labor Against the War” and “Labor for Palestine”, donated $5000 to support the legal defense of Lori Berenson, in prison for aiding Marxist Shining Path terrorists in Peru, and donated a sizable amount for the defense of Sami Al-Arian convicted of conspiracy to aid terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad. After the 9/11 attacks, the PSC organized anti-war teach-ins on CUNY campuses blaming the attacks on “American Imperialism” at one of the events, and mobilized its membership to protest the Republican Party at its National Convention in the city in 2004. Since they have been in power, the Patriot has monitored the PSC leadership’s failure to negotiate a satisfactory contract for CUNY faculty members while spending a considerable amount of $60 million in collected dues money on irrelevant and dangerous political causes.

Recent issues of the Patriot have targeted O’Malley’s tireless efforts to find teaching positions at CUNY for convicted terrorist conspirator Mohammad Yousry, and Susan Rosenberg, convicted Weather Underground terrorist, sentenced to a 58 year prison term for the possession of 700 pounds of dynamite. Karkhanis wrote satirically: “There are hundreds of qualified people looking for teaching jobs. Why does she prefer convicted terrorists who are bent on harming our people and our nation, over peace-loving Americans?” (Patriot 3/12/07)

On September 28, O’Malley filed a lawsuit with the New York Supreme Court seeking $2 million in monetary damages for wrongful statements published in the Patriot and a permanent ban on the future publication of offensive material against the plaintiff. In a subsequent interview in the New York Sun concerning the lawsuit, O’Malley said: “It’s all very, very silly.” After Karkhanis refused to be intimidated into silence by the threat of a costly lawsuit, the formal legal complaint, Susan O’Malley v. Sharad Karkhanis, John Doe and Jane Doe was filed on December 21, 2007.

One week prior to filing the formal charges, O’Malley lost two UFS seats by more than 50% of the vote in the KCC elections held for campus senator and alternate. This is the first time since 1980 she has been voted out of her UFS office. It appears that these election defeats dealt a humiliating blow to O’Malley by fellow KCC faculty who may be loosing respect for her due to the frivolous nature of the lawsuit. CUNY faculty have argued that such matters of dispute between colleagues should be dealt with in a collegial setting within the CUNY system rather than making it public in a court of law with frivolous charges and outrageous monetary claims.

• Special accommodations for the press will be made at the Dinner event at Antun’s.
• Regularly updated news and information on Dr. Karkhanis’ case can be accessed from the Free Speech at CUNY Website. http://freespeechcuny.blogspot.com/
• The Patriot Returns archives can be accessed at: http://www.patriotreturns.com
• The formal legal complaint: Susan O’Malley v. Sharad Karkhanis, John Doe and Jane Doe is posted on Professor Mitchell Langbert’s blog: http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2007/12/susan-omalley-v-sharad-karkhanis-john.html

[[END OF RELEASE]]

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: 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.