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

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

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

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

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

Paper Pushers Dominate Campaign Contributions

OpenSecrets.org lists useful data on campaign contributions for the 2008 campaign. I copied information for Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, Giuliani and Paul into the table below. Lawyers prefer the Democrats. They lead the list of donors for both Obama and Clinton, come in fourth for Romney (not shown), second for Giuliani and eighth for Paul.

Retired people are the chief donors to Huckabee, second largest donors to Obama, third to Clinton, third to Giuliani, first to Romney (not shown) and first to Paul. Securities and investment professionals are third on Obama's list, second on Clinton's list, third on Huckabee's first on Giuliani's, second on Romney's (not shown) and seventh for Paul. Educators prefer the Democrats, and appear in Paul's top ten list but not the leading Republicans'.

Retirees and lawyers seem to lead the list. People who work in manufacturing, technology and retail can expect government to exploit them in the years to come.

Ranks of Donors to Presidential Candidates


Rank / Obama / Clinton / Huckabee / Giuliani / Paul

1 / Lawyers / Lawyers / Retired / Sec. & Inv./ Retired
2 / Retired / Sec. & Inv. / Real Estate / Lawyers / Computers
3 / Sec. & Inv. / Retired / Sec. & Inv. / Retired / Misc. Bus.
4 / Misc. Bus. / Real Estate / Health / Real Estate/ Health
5 / Real Estate / Bus. Services / Lawyers / Misc. Fin. / Real Es.
6 / Entertainment / Misc. Bus. / Misc. Finance / Bus. Serv. / Fin
7 / Education / Entertainment / Misc. Bus. / Misc. Bus. / Sec.
8 / Bus. Services / Health / Business Serv. /Health / Lawyers
9 / Health / Education / Manufacturing / Comm. Banks / Educ.
10 / Fin. / Fin. / Civil Servants / Oil and Gas / Bus.Serv.

On The Fence Films Confirms That There Is No Indiana University Lawsuit

Mr. Langbert,


There is no lawsuit.

Best Regards,

Stuart Browning
On The Fence FIlms

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 to Sue O'Malley for Her Released Time/Teaching History

From: "Mitchell Langbert"
To:
Subject: Copy of Your Released Time/Courses Actually Taught for Past 10 Years
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:25:23 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01C84BC9.BE920750"
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: As I'm blogging about your complaint against Karkhanis I would like to post data that supports your side as well as his. I noticed that he has referred to you as "Queen of Released Time". I would like to post your actual hours of released time each semester along with the courses you've actually taught by semester for the past ten years:

Semester/Year / Hours of Released Time / Classes Actually Taught / Hours Actually Taught

Fall 1997
Spring 1998
Fall 1999
Spring 2000
.
.
.

Thanks,


Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

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"

Herbert Croly's Progressive Democracy: A Roadmap for Social Justice Educators

Herbert Croly. Progressive Democracy with a new introduction by Sidney A Pearson, Jr. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ. 1998. Originally published in 1914 by the Macmillan Company.

Herbert Croly's 94-year-old Progressive Democracy is slow going because its English is as thick as Turkish coffee. A contemporary reader needs patience to imbibe its grounds, but the gulping is worth it. Many of Croly's ideas are outdated, but the degree to which current progressive-liberals continue to advocate them is remarkable given their persistent failure.

At times, Croly uses the term progressive-liberal. Those who called themselves liberal, dropping the progressive in the post-war period, have reverted to calling themselves progressive, dropping the liberal part, in the post-Clinton era. Perhaps the term progressive-liberal, which is a term Croly sometimes uses, instead of either progressive or liberal is best. Game playing with nomenclature distracts attention from content. Given the outcomes of the progressive-liberals' ideas, game playing might serve their purposes well.

The progressive-liberals' game-playing with nomenclature follows Croly. Croly's use of the term conservatives versus progressive-liberals is an example. In various places (p. 148) he contrasts individual justice with social justice but he does not refer to advocates of individual justice as say individualist-liberals versus progressive-liberals, which would have been more neutral. Instead, he uses the terms progressive-liberals versus conservatives, which suggests that progress requires adoption of progressive-liberals' ideas. Although Croly's ideas were adopted through the 1980s, their adoption stalled rather than furthered progress.

Croly's emphasis on democracy at the expense of limited government remains a mainstay of progressive-liberal ideology. Many of Croly's ideas about governmental reforms, such as the executive's proposing the budget to the legislature, are taken for granted today. His vision that vaguely defined law will be implemented through regulation is what exists today. Those who advocated government reform in the early twentieth century, such as Theodore Roosevelt, were Croly's friends and admirers.

As I have previously blogged, Croly emphasizes social justice education and the role of education in the inculcation of his social justice ideology. Democracy and education overlap. The book's final chapter (p. 406) on social education is a precursor to post-1960s political correctness:

"The need of imposing more exacting standards of behavior upon the citizens of an industrial democratic state applies to the citizen as citizen no less than the citizen as worker...The being of better men and women will involve, as it always has involved, the subordination, to a very considerable extent, of individual interests and desires to the requirements of social welfare."

Ayn Rand termed Croly's view altruism. It explains why progressive-liberals are eager to advocate policies that common sense rejects. One can subordinate oneself to an infinite set of incompetent or harmful policies. Although progressive-liberalism has consistently advocated these, progressive-liberals remain convinced because they believe in altruism. In their view, self-sacrifice is virtue so their advocacy of harmful policies is moral. There is no end to the ways that progressive-liberals can encourage altruistic virtue, especially when applied to others.

The progressive-liberals base their ideology on the pragmatists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, who argued that the best course is found empirically through trial and error. However, at least since the New Deal, progressive-liberalism has been rigidly attached to government solutions and has rejected the possibility of error in government-based solutions. The government solution, once adopted, has been written in stone tablets and cannot be abridged. Even when programs fail, and private sector solutions might work better, progressive-liberals irrationally adhere to them. The progressive-liberals have betrayed William James and Charles Sanders Pierce.

In Progressive Democracy Croly argues that the 19th century American system of government, which combined legal limits that restrained political power with legal review, needed to be revised. The American democracy had been "timid" (p. 26) and needed to be "aroused to take a searching look at its own meaning and responsibilities". In his advocacy of the Americanism of reform Croly was not far from Jefferson, who in a famous letter to William S. Smith wrote:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Croly argues that "the way to rationalize political power" is not to limit it but (p. 38) to "accept the danger of violence" and to develop reasonable thinking from within. Croly was of course no Jeffersonian. Rather, he was more favorable to Hamilton and the Whigs, and admired the pro-business policies of the Republicans, although he considered them to have failed.

Education

In Croly's view, "reasonable thinking" was to be inculcated through education. He discusses the threat to social values and social cohesion of the various suffrage, labor and similar movements of the early twentieth century (p. 407) and argues that (p. 408)"social cohesion cannot be made effective without some measure of social compulsion." Thus, Croly's progressive-liberal ideology is a violent one, an argument more explicitly expressed in Croly's other famous book, Promise of American Life. Croly aims to contain the danger of democratic violence with compulsion through education:

" the creation of an adequate system of educating men and women for disinterested service is a necessary condition both of social amelioration and social conservation."

Thus, progressive-liberalism is in part a program for social control through education. Croly's view of national purpose as necessary to bind the democracy and create human excellence suggests compulsion as well. Croly argues against "moral coercion" or the inculcation of the habit of self-restraint in education (p. 413), which he saw as part of the maintenance of the old social order in favor of (p. 417) "a liberal education" which opposes "traditional culture" (p. 417):

"The social education appropriate to a democracy must be, above all, a liberal education. It must accomplish for the mass of the people a work of intellectual and moral emancipation similar to that which the traditional system of human culture has been supposed to accomplish for a minority. This traditional culture could never become really liberating, because of the narrowness and sterility of its human interests...(Traditional liberal education) was intended to emancipate only a few privileged people..."

Croly disagrees that education ought to encourage "self-control, moderation and circumspection". He argues that the rule of "live and let live" favors the rich, who engage in conspicuous consumption, and ought to be replaced with a philosophy of "live and help live" (p. 426), a philosophy of social justice education. He links social justice education to labor issues, and the restructuring of work.

In this, Croly anticipates modern management theory, specifically the ideas of Elton Mayo's human relations school, and the job redesign theories of Frederick Herzberg and Abraham Maslow. He writes (p. 422):

"The masses need, of course, a larger share of material welfare, but they need most of all an increased opportunity of wholesome and stimulating social labor. Their work must be made interesting to them, not merely because of its compensation, but because its performance calls for the development of more eager and more responsible human beings."

Like Herzberg, Croly advocates redistribution of dull and interesting work, which Herzberg, 45 years later, called vertical downloading. This idea saw its fulfillment in the 1980s downsizing of corporations, where managerial work was assigned to rank-and-file workers along with the rote work. In contrast, Croly advocated the socialization of dull work by distributing it among all citizens. However, this view is naive because it ignores the specialization of labor on which modern economies rest.

Rather than discipline, Croly argues that education should involve active involvement in social behavior, which relates to the issue of social justice dispositions or competencies. He argues that "the only way to prepare for social life is to engage in social life" (p. 423). He emphasizes faith in the belief in the "invincible interdependence between individual and social fulfillment" (p. 425). "Live and help live" suggests, in Croly's view "the ultimate collectivism" (p. 426-7):

"The obligation of mutual assistance is fundamental...Every victorious selfish impulse, every perverse and cowardly thought, every petty action, every irresponsibility and infirmity of the will helps to impoverish the lives of other people as well as our own lives. We cannot liberate ourselves without seeking to liberate them..."

Croly's book leaves little doubt about the ideological foundation of the concept of social justice disposition that the National Council on Teacher Education has permitted in education schools and, according to George Will, has been prevalent in social work schools.

Croly's faith in the perfectibility of humanity is the same faith that has been at the root of the worst crimes of the twentieth century, from the 25 points of Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party program and Marx's Communist Manifesto to the mass killings in Germany, the USSR and Cuba. While Croly suggests the importance of moderation and self-restraint (that is, focusing on others rather than ourselves requires self-restraint), it is precisely the inculcation of moderation and self-restraint that Croly attacks in his discussion about education.

The followers of Croly and John Dewey have inevitably focused on developing habits of self-esteem, experiential educational and the unimportance of basic skills and knowledge, coupled with an ideology that assumes a tremendous degree of human self-restraint. Thus, progressive-liberal education sets up students for failure on moral as well as academic grounds.

Summary

Croly bases his argument on the idea that limited government, what he considers the legalistic Constitutionalism of nineteenth century America, was a way for the founding fathers, 18th century republican liberals, to permit the government to escape "popular control" (p. 46). Excessive emphasis or "deification" of the Constitution resulted from lack of respect for the "popular will". The American system perpetuated the English "political and legal tradition" (p. 57) and focused on individual liberty and property. The Jeffersonian Democrats opposed federalism, which amounted to the legalistic system that Croly decries, but Jefferson allied himself with the Constitutional system, to the Democrats' political advantage (p. 59). Croly repeatedly expresses frustration with American democracy's unwillingness to change the underlying Constitutional system. In his view, American government was government by law and the courts while the two political parties reflected direct popular control, and the purpose of the parties was to "humanize and control government by Law" (p. 67).

Croly's frustration with the Constitutionalism of nineteenth century American democracy relates to its limits on the power and scope of government:

"Good administration consists in the adoption of the most efficient available methods for the accomplishment of an accepted policy."

But while the state was hamstrung, the 19th century political parties were effective. But the political parties are self-interested and so did not care about efficient administration.

Croly is relatively fond of the pro-business Whigs. He describes them (p. 75) as

"a national party whose life depended upon its ability to unite on an enterprising positive assertion of the public interest...Its National Bank was abolished. Its protective tariff was reduced to almost a revenue basis. A national plan of internal improvements was never adopted. Thus the Whigs were beaten all along the line."

Despite the Whigs' defeat, the expansion of markets led to a recognition of the need for a national economic policy and (pp. 86-7):

"Stephen Douglas was the first conspicuous political leader who proposed national grants of land in aid of railroad corporations...Public assistance was bestowed upon almost every essential economic interest...The Republican Party...almost immediately became the victim of special economic interests and devoted its power to the establishment of a privileged and undemocratic economic system..."

In turn (p. 93), "both the capitalist and the agricultural had come to depend for the satisfaction of their interests not merely on the vigorous stimulation afforded by the Constitution, but on the vigorous stimulation provided by the government." This government subsidy to industry was being made based on the belief that "every economic class was benefiting equally from the stimulation" but this was not, in Croly's view, true (p.95):

"In point of fact the stimulation of productive economic energy no longer contributed necessarily to the public welfare; and the two partisan organizations were no longer instruments of democratic rule."

Croly (p. 88) approves of the Republicans' emphasis on "accelerating the production of wealth" although he does not believe that their individualist, laissez faire philosophy was successful.

This ultimately becomes an empirical question: do the policies that the nineteenth century Republicans advocated have a better long term effect on increasing wealth than the policies that Croly advocates or not? Given that Croly's policies have been adopted, and the twentieth century has not seen the economic progress of the nineteenth, it seems that Croly was wrong. Indeed, Croly contradicts himself when he is making different points. On p. 92 he writes of the post Civil War period:

"Wealth was created and accumulated more quickly than ever before...The American people were enjoying much prosperity and were mad for more..."

But it does not occur to him that this is impossible without major technological advance because Croly assumes a distributive economic process (p. 97). Again we see the basic Progressive-liberal pattern, where a fallacy that Croly enunciated in 1914 (along with socialists, such as Marx) remains a foundation of progressive-liberal views today. Because, in Croly's view, pioneers used up resources, their individual actions did not necessarily serve social interests. The wealth creation of the late nineteenth century was exploitative in his view. But it was not. In a distributive economic process, one side's gain is the other side's loss. In an integrative process, one side's gain is the other side's gain as well. Market transactions are inevitably integrative because otherwise they would not occur. Even the most exploited third world worker has the right to refuse to work in a factory. The same was true of capitalist industrial expansion in the nineteenth century. It enabled an enormous influx of immigrants, who were poorer than Croly would have liked. But if the wealth creation of the nineteenth century had been distributive, there would have been a downturn because of the immigration. But there was not. Rather, real wages rose throughout the late nineteenth century and until the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Croly's points about government support of business are good, but, and this is in keeping with the progressive-liberal viewpoint of today, the remedy for the failure of government is not necessarily more government. The remedy might be to shrink or eliminate government because its programs are poorly conceived and executed. Yet, Croly does not consider this to be a realistic possibility. Better to address the problem of failed government support for railroads by having government regulate the railroads and support them even more.

Croly argues that as industry expanded more people became employees and so could not benefit from government subsidies to business (p. 98):

"A system which had intended to scatter the benefits of special economic privileges over the whole surface of society had resulted in the piling up of these benefits on certain limited areas...Mere stimulation of the production of wealth, which was being distributed in so unequal a manner, was no longer a nationalizing and socializing economic policy..."

Thus, the capitalist class, in Croly's view, gained the chief advantage from Republican support for business, while the growing working class was ignored. Ironically, policies that Croly advocated, notably various regulations, ended up serving the same ends. It remains a puzzle to me why, given the inability of government to avoid special interest capture, the progressive-liberals have not concluded that government opposes the ends that they seek.

Private Property

Croly (p. 112) also argues for a modification to, but not elimination of, the institution of private property in order to "socialize human nature" and that private property inevitably leads to privilege (p. 113):

"The recognition of a necessary inequality and injustice in the operation of the existing institution of private property, coupled with the recognition that the immediate abolition of private property would be both unjust and impracticable, constitutes the foundation of any really national and progressive economic policy."

Instead, Croly argues for the "socialization" (p. 115) of privilege. People should be permitted to keep the privileges they have, but be gradually taught that they must earn the privileges. Society must require that those who benefit from wealth earn the spoils. The Republicans had failed to require that privileges be passed around. Society should make privileges available to the "disenfranchised" (p. 116) and, in somewhat odd terminology that almost sounds like compulsory labor(p.116):

"create a system of special discipline, coextensive with the system of special privilege, the object of which will be assurance, as the result of its operation, of socially desirable fruits."

In other words, Croly argues that wage earners had been excluded from opportunity, and the American capitalist system could not make property ownership accessible to them because the frontier was used up. A new system of privilege involving social legislation would thus be focused on wage earners. This regulation was subsequently passed in the Progressive era and the New Deal, to include health and safety regulation (passed in the 1970s), labor regulation (passed during the New Deal) and expansion of higher education, a post World War II phenomenon. What is most noteworthy today about these proposals is that although they have been in place for decades, social stratification is today greater than ever. Hence, Croly's policies have failed to eliminate social stratification. Today, we have universities that graduate semi-literates; labor legislation that is irrelevant to workers' interests; health and safety regulation that at most marginally protects workers but significantly raises costs to small firms; and inflationary credit policies that have concentrated wealth among connected hedge fund operators, Wall Street executives and commercial bankers. Croly's vision of democratized privilege has failed. Yet, today's progressive-liberals are not pragmatists who urge experimentation and new approaches, say abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank. Should anyone suggest that the poor cost/benefit ratio that Social Security provides requires an alternative approach, our reactionary progressive-liberals howl.

Croly's belief (p.123) that "responsible" American political organizataion must be coextensive with the new system of "privilege" has also fared poorly. Although open bribery no longer exists, as it did in Croly's day and earlier, the extent of corruption is probably greater in absolute dollars. Hence, Croly's vision of a responsible government coupled with a new system of privilege has merely served to cloak more privilege and more corruption than ever before. This results directly from the failure of the Croly's method, a strong state and an emphasis on popular deliberation, that has become fundamental to today's progressive-liberalism.

Popular Political Education

Croly (p. 144) argues that American Constitutional democracy succeeded and that the American public had been educated as to how to function democratically, so that the safeguards against tyranny that limited government and the Constitution promulgated were no longer needed. Likewise, progressive-liberals must emphasize popular political education (p. 145):

"The great object of progressives must always be to create a vital relation between progressivism and popular political education. If such a relation cannot be brought about, progressive democracy becomes a snare and an illusion..."

Faith and Progressive-liberalism

The difference (p. 148) between the progressive-liberal political education and the 19th century classical liberal education is that:

"The ideal of individual justice is being supplemented by the ideal of social justice...Now the tendency is to conceive the social welfare not as an end which cannot be left to the happy harmonizing of individual interests, but as an end which must be consciously willed by society and efficiently realized. Society has become a moral ideal not independent of the individual but supplementary to him, an ideal which must be pursued less by regulating individual excesses than by active encouragement of socializing tendencies and purposes."

Democracy can be furthered only by popular good will. But laissez faire republicanism limited the popular will. The founders intended to (p. 153):

"create a system which would make for liberty and justice in spite of he want of character of the American people"

while progressive-liberals believe that increasing democracy will enhance the "collective enlightenment of the people". Laissez faire resulted in cynicism and business opportunism. Progressivism is an expression of and form of faith (p. 168):

"A democracy becomes courageous, progressive and ascendant just in so far as it dares to have faith...Faith in things unseen and unknown is as indispensible to a progressive democracy as it is to an individual Christian..."

Croly (p. 168) compares the progressive-liberals' rejection of the Constitution with the early Christians' replacement of the Jewish law with faith. The progressive-liberals' faith is in social justice and in social justice education (p. 211-12):

"The socially righteous expression of the popular will is to be brought about by frank and complete confidence in (popular democracy). This faith is in itself educational in the deepest and most fruitful meaning of that word...The value of the social structure is commensurate with the value of the accompanying educational discipline and enlightenment...The idea of social justice is so exacting and so comprehensive that it cannot be progressively attained by any agency save by the loyal and intelligent devotion of popular will...The people are made whole by virtue of the consecration of their collective efforts to the realization of an ideal of social justice."

Croly also argues for pragmatism in the pursuit of social justice and democracy (p. 217):

"The immediate program is only the temporary instrument which must be continually reformed and readjusted as a result of the experience gained by its experimental application..."

In practice, of course, progressive-liberalism has turned out to be extremely conservative. I doubt that even one in one thousand progressive-liberal programs and ideas has ever been terminated from the federal government once adopted. In contrast, private firms kill ideas all the time, and the ratio is reversed for new product introductions or business start ups.

Restructuring of Government

Several of Croly's ideas about restructuring government were subsequently adopted. Croly favored increased government power but was only lukewarm toward the ideas of "direct democracy" that have been adopted in the west---the referendum, the recall and the initiative. In his view, the importance of strengthening democracy was that it permits pursuit of "a vigorous social program" (p. 270), and in turn the need for a vigorous social program results from changes in society and political organization. Positive social policies require "strong responsible governments" (p. 271) and (p. 274) "a thoroughly representative government is essentially government by men rather than by Law". In order to accomplish unlimited government, the (p. 272) administrative and legislative branches of government needed to be enhanced (p. 270):

"Direct democracy, that is, has little meaning except in a community which is resolutely pursuing a vigorous social program. It must become one of a group of political institutions whose object is fundamentally to invigorate and socialize the action of American public opinion..."

More important, in Croly's view would be a new organization to (p. 283) "promote political education." This is accomplished by increasing both state government and popular control together (p. 286). I got the feeling in reading these recommendations that Croly was anticipating George Orwell's 1984. He says that both government agencies that function beyond the cognitive domain of the public ought to have increased authority and popular control of the same organizations ought to be increased. But you cannot have both. Perhaps Croly believed that you could, but there are cognitive limits on rational decision making even in private enterprises. How on earth could the general public evaluate the actions of specialized regulators, who may well be doing things that would meet with public disapproval if the public understood what they were doing?

Croly (p. 287) speaks glowingly of municipal commissions that combine "a simple, strong and efficient government with a thoroughly popular government." It seems to me that the history of Robert Moses in New York is very much an outgrowth of this kind of self-contradictory mental gymnastics. Moses started out doing things that met with popular approval, but carried his activities to the point of doing things that threw tens of thousands of people out of their homes in order to provide transportation outlets to suburbanites. Ultimately, Moses's work became corrupt in areas like urban renewal and public housing. Moses's corruption and the hatchet job Moses did on the Upper East Side's coastline is the fruition of Croly's ideas.

Croly (p. 292) uses a proposal of the People's Power Leaguge for the government of Oregon as an example of progressive-liberal reform. The governor and legislature would be elected on the same day. The governor would have extensive appointment authority. The governor could be recalled. The governor could recommend legislation and also vote in the legislature. He would have no veto power. He would introduce the budget. The state legislature would counterbalance a stronger executive. Voters could cast their ballots for legislative candidates of other districts. If any one sixtieth of all voters vote for a candidate, the candidate would be elected to the legislature. No bill could pass unless the number of legislators voting for it reflected a majority of the voting citizens. Defeated candidates for governor would be members of the legislature representing voters who voted for unsuccessful candidates. By allowing voters to vote for candidates in other districts, voting might be more along the lines of class and interest groups such as labor unions and farmers.

Thus (p. 303) in Croly's view the governor ought to be responsible for proposing legislation and executing law, which is the basic approach that many states have adopted although not in such extreme ways. In Croly's view (p. 304) executive leadership best reflects majority opinion. Initiatives and referendums are not really democratic because (p. 306) only a minority of people vote. Referendums place power in a knowledgable minority (p. 308):

"A democracy should not be organized so that the alert and vigorous minority can easily make its will prevail over their less vigorous fellow-citizens."

The two-party system (p. 312) leads, in Croly's view, to the suppression of differences of public opinion in the interest of party unity. A focus on executive leadership involves a greater emphasis on the candidate for governor's ability to oranize a legitimate majority. Executive leadership will arouse and concentrate public opinion. Interest groups would form coalitions. "Majority rule would be salutary, precisely because it would be fluid and adjustable" (p. 323).

Conclusion

Croly puts excessive faith on the public's ability to discern errors or governmental decisions that are entirely in opposition to the public's interest. The media are able to mislead and misrepresent. Economic interests with much to gain are likely to pay in various ways to obtain misrepresentation that serves them. Coverage of the Federal Reserve Bank and inflation, for instance, has been a joke for the past 50years. The public hears that Alan Greenspan has done an excellent job, and is asleep to the reality that a dollar in 1979 is worth 38 cents today. The flattening of real wages, they are told is due to the tax system and free trade, and they vote for Mike Huckabee.

Croly's optimism about the power of democracy was tragically naive. We will never know how many lives would have been transformed by technological breakthroughs that did not occur because of the adoption of progressive-liberalism.

Similarly, his views on social justice education have had unfortunate outcomes in recent years. One can appreciate his optimism but find his misguided application of religious fervor to democracy distasteful and foolish.

It is tragic that Croly's ideas have had a dominant influence on twentieth century America. His progressive-liberal ideology is intrusive, destructive and ugly. That it has gained favor among American elites suggests a massive failure of twentieth century education and morality. We live in a dark age, especially when compared to the nineteenth century.