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.  

Sharad Karkhanis, RIP

Sharad Karkhanis, a political scientist, a librarian and a professor emeritus of Kingsborough Community College, has died.  According to Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, Sharad will be cremated in accordance with Hindu law.  At CUNY Sharad was the spearhead of resistance to union incompetence and corruption. He published a newsletter, The Patriot Returns, that he had snail mailed (paying significant mailing costs out of his own pocket); with the advent of the Internet, he emailed it to, he estimated, 13,000 CUNY faculty.  His newsletter featured biting humor that more often than not induced out-loud laughter.   Sharad pulled no punches in lambasting the Professional Staff Congress, CUNY's inept, corrupt, and extremist faculty union.  At one point Susan O'Malley, a PSC officer,  whom he crowned the Queen of Released Time because she spent little time teaching, sued him for libel (also here and here).

Sharad assembled a network of activists, both within and outside of CUNY, and he often served as a lynchpin for resistance to the PSC's bizarre initiatives.  He was a supporter of Israel.  As well, he attended the Ron Paul event in Manhattan with me and another friend in April 2011.

Sharad was a fighter who cared about what was right.  He visited me at my home in Town of Olive several times, making a long drive from Brooklyn. He was thoughtful and generous.

Sharad, you will be missed. RIP.

Karkhanis Mocks Professional Staff Congress Leadership

In his Patriot Returns newsletter, which goes to 13,000 CUNY faculty and employees, Sharad Karkhanis presents a hilarious satire of the leadership of the Professional Staff Congress, CUNY's far left union: 

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.

Sharad Karkhanis on CUNY's Red Union

Sharad Karkhanis is a "patriot" in the sense that many on this blog mean the word. The City University of New York (CUNY) has long been dominated by anti-American, left-wing extremists. Recently, for instance, an anonymous poster on the website of the CUNY graduate center issued a detailed diatribe attacking the university's trustees for working for private companies, as though this were some kind of crime. The poster went on to fondly quote Lenin, murderer of hundreds of thousands and founder of a Soviet state that likely murdered in excess of 65 million. This and other extremists have come to dominate much of faculty life at CUNY.

Karkhanis, along with several other courageous intellectual non-conformists such as Professors David Seidemann and Dorothy Lang, has stood firm against the hate-filled ideologues who dominate CUNY's faculty union, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC). Karkhanis issues a newsletter, Patriot Returns, which he e-mails to 13,000 current and former CUNY faculty. He has done this for decades at his own expense, for many years prior to the advent of e-mail paying for 13,000 postage stamps out of his own pocket.

In response to his courageous investigations of extremism in the CUNY faculty union, one of the union's lackeys, Susan O'Malley, has filed a harrassing law suit against Karkhanis claiming "defamation". O'Malley has public stated that she considers the issue "silly", yet with the PSC's conservative-baiting bigots cheering her on, O'Malley has pressed forward with her case, costing Professor Karkhanis significant out of pocket expenses.

In the current issue Karkhanis takes on the willingness of various officers of the PSC to allow the illegal use of CUNY's e-mail for political purposes. He also criticizes the PSC for failing to follow up grievances in a timely manner and for using political criteria to select whose grievances they will follow up.

Let us roundly applaud Professor Karkhanis's courageous efforts.

David Seidemann Comments on the PSC's Use of CUNY's E-mail

Dear Mitchell,

To reinforce your argument, allow me to point out two things:

1) The Second Circuit Carroll case regarding NYPIRG funding specifies that NYPIRG is an ideologic organization.

2) An internal NYPIRG memo leaked to the press in the mid 1990s shows, among many things damaging to NYPIRG, that it uses its classroom pitches as a recruitment tool.

Further, there is now a court case pending that addresses CUNY's entanglement with NYPIRG and the variety of First Amendment violations that flow from that.

David

Is the Professional Staff Congress Violating Section 501(c)(3)?

NYPIRG is an ideological advocacy group that encourages college students to advocate on behalf of causes of which Ralph Nader approves. Under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, universities receive tax exemption on the condition that they do not engage in political lobbying, engage in ideological advocacy or political activity. I just received the following message through campus e-mail from Scott Dexter, a representative of the City University of New York's faculty union, the Professional Staff Congress. I would guess that this was not authorized by the university. Is this political advocacy? You be the judge.

>From: owner-announce-l@brooklyn.cuny.edu on behalf of Professional Staff Congress (PSC) - BC Chapter
Sent: Fri 9/26/2008 11:20 AM
To: announce-l
Subject: Student voter registration with the PSC and NYPIRG

The PSC is urging its members who work in the classroom to invite a representative from NYPIRG (the New York Public Interest Research Group) to their classes to register students to vote. At Brooklyn College, NYPIRG can be reached by email at brooklyn@nypirg.org or by phone at (718) 859-7177; their office is in 0302 James.

The New York deadline for voter registration is Friday, October 10, so please get in touch with NYPIRG soon to arrange visits to your class.

Scott Dexter

New York Times Lauds CUNY Honors College

The New York Times has written an excellent article about the CUNY Honors College (h/t Sharad Karkhanis). The CUNY Honors College sports an average SAT score of 1399, 267 points higher than the average for CUNY's four-year colleges. CUNY has had an upswing in the past ten years, ever since I arrived in 1998. Just kidding. Good work by Chancellor Matt Goldstein. Oddly, the CUNY faculty union, the Professional Staff Congress, has repeatedly assaulted Chancellor Goldstein. They object to rising standards, higher SAT scores and a better reputation.

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.

The Professional Staff Congress and Revolutionary Unionism

The temperate, prudent, courageous, just and of course virtuous Sharad Karkhanis has written an excellent issue of Patriot Returns. Karkhanis named his newsletter after our Patriot missles, which shot down Iraqi Scuds in 1991. With a circulation of 13,000, Karkhanis's newsletter aims to shoot down the Scuds of the perverse CUNY faculty union, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC) and hopefully blow the PSC leadership back to Cuba, although I doubt that even Castro or his brother would want them. Maybe North Korea's Kim Jong-il would welcome them since they seem to aim to give the CUNY faculty a North Korean-style wage-and-benefit package, but even he might find them tiresome.

In the early twentieth century there were alternative models of unionism being proposed. The mainstream AF of L, created by Samuel Gompers and Adolph Strasser, advocated a form of unionism that labor scholar Robert F. Hoxie called business unionism. Business unionism does not question the underlying assumptions of the capitalist economy and resorts to political gamesmanship only in order to "reward friends and punish enemies". Its emphasis is improving wages, benefits and working conditions, not changing the world. Gompers expressed the pro-capitalist essence of business unionism when someone asked him: "What does labor want?" Gompers responded: "More". Like any profit-maximizing capitalist, and any red-blooded American, business unionists aim to advance themselves economically. In contrast, models of unionism that were prevalent during the early twentieth century included the Industrial Workers of the World (the Wobblies) and the communist unionism of the Socialist Labor Party's Daniel de Leon's Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance and others. American workers rejected what labor scholar Hoxie called revolutionary unionism in favor of business unionism. The gulf between the "New" Left and the business unionists reached a crescendo during the Vietnam War in 1965 when AFL-CIO president George Meany announced his support for the Vietnam War.

Inverting the historical pattern, the PSC leadership has rejected business unionism in favor of revolutionary unionism. Its repeated calls for demonstrations; the anti-Iraqi War protests several years ago; the endless radical rhetoric that has alienated New York's political establishment (social democratic thought it be); and the utter contempt with which the PSC's leadership treats economic and workplace issues all suggest that the PSC does not operate as a mainstream union. The low contract numbers that Karkhanis decries result from the PSC's leadership's strategic choice to favor revolution over selfish gain, or even selfish keeping your head above water and avoiding the bankruptcy judge.

Perhaps the the PSC leadership does not need to worry about electric, heating, gasoline and food bills. Perhaps like Professor Ros, they live in high rent apartments on six figure incomes. Perhaps they can afford to contribute $5,000 to the Obama campaign.

If so, isn't it time to get back to reality and rocket this crew back to Cuba via one of Karkhanis's Patriots?

Karkhanis Blasts Professional Staff Congress

Sharad Karkhanis, who has been attacked in a Professional Staff Congress (PSC)-related law suit, has just released his latest newsletter, Patriot Returns. Karkhanis offers brilliant coverage of David Seidemann's case, about which Candace de Russy and I have blogged. The Chronicle of Higher Education has also covered the case. Karkhanis notes:

"Convinced that the PSC had treated agency-fee payers unfairly, David Seidemann, a Yale educated full professor of Geology at Brooklyn College, has been patient and tenacious in seeking justice. Since 2002, he's amassed voluminous documentation, collected and examined all relevant information and legal precedents, and pursued the PSC with the tenacity and conviction of an irate faculty member. Seidemann sensed that there was some hanky panky going on with his and your hard-earned dollars. The 1% of our gross salary that goes to union dues or agency fees should be spent for our benefit rather than being diverted to further the New Caucasians' political agenda."

Karkhanis asks:

"Our question is, although permissible in the eyes of the law for the union to spend monies to march, parade and shout out loud to bring pressure on the management on behalf of the dues paying members, how germane is it for the PSC to spend dues money on excessive participation in such activities?"

See the entire blog here. The PSC leadership has spent its time on anti-Iraqi War crusades while neglecting its function of representing faculty. Barbara Bowen and her colleagues have failed CUNY's faculty.

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's Law

Several people met at a Chinese restaurant in Brooklyn to discuss the establishment of a not-for-profit that would serve the function of raising money on behalf of students and faculty who are sued or otherwise legally harassed by higher education institutions. The meeting went well. In the course of the meeting, Phil Orenstein suggested a law, which I call Sharad's Law, after Sharad Karkhanis, who is being sued by a union officer of the faculty union of the City University of New York. Sharad's Law would prohibit the hiring of convicted terrorists by governmental institutions, including higher education institutions.

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.

O'Malley v. Karkhanis; Johnson v. Yousry

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

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

Dear UFS Chair O'Malley:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"'Cordially,

"'Susan G. O'Malley'"

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

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



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

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


"MATTERS PERTAINING TO ALL CLAIMS

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

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

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

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

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

"Karkhanis never responded to the Letter

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

"AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

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

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

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

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

"and

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

"and

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

"and

"'LYNN STEWART AT THE PSC?

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

"and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

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

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

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

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

"and

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

"and

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

"and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

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

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

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

"and

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

"and

"'Our questions are:

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"and

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

"and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


"AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

"AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

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

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

"'CUNY's Queen Abdicates!'

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

"and

"'THE RETURN OF THE QUEEN?'

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

"and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"AS AND FOR A EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"AS AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION

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

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

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

"and

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

"and

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

"and

"'ON YOUR DUES MONEY'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"December 21, 2007

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