[Marxism] Forwarded from Jim Craven

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Louis,

I am on an extended "excellent adventure" just back to chair a final tenure
meeting. I hope you and Mine are well.

Would you please forward this to marxism, pen-l and a-lists as I am
traveling and not in contact with computers and this savage has no lap-top
or cell phone.

I see liberal organizations like MoveOn.Org celebrating the victory of
Christine Gregoire in Washington State. The following, written by a
courageous and highly principled Korean woman, my friend Kim Eun Il or Emma
Kim, has been published in various public venues, has been given to all
members of the Board of Trustees of Clark College, has been given to past
and present administrations of Clark College, is a matter of public record,
and stands unanswered and unrebutted despite repeated pleas for answer,
rebuttal and any counter-facts/reasoning that would correct any alleged
mistakes or untruths by Emma Kim.

A secret file, kept on me at the request of the Washington State Attorney
General's Office, headed by Christine Gregoire, still exists and after a
public records request under RCW 42.17.250 for copies of the some 5000
pages, which I have never seen, and which has been used against me in the
past, I have not seen yet because I am expected to come up with $500 for 10
cents per page to have it copied and I will never pay that $500. My
previous Dean has seen this file composed mostly of my past e-mails and
correspondence.

For the record, the present Administration outside of HR, contains no one
who was involved in these matters discussed by Emma. Also for the record, I
am a tenured professor of Economics and Geography, Chairman of the Business
Division, with hiring authority that I have exercized and do exercise and
am presently an employee of the Government of the State of Washington on
sabbatical. Also for the record, Clark College has scored "affirmative
action" points and monies by using/claiming me as "their" Indian professor
and has sent me to various conferences representing Indigenous issues.

Jim Craven

James M. Craven
Blackfoot Name: Omahkohkiaayo-i'poyi
Professor/Consultant,Economics;Business Division Chair
Clark College, 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd.
Vancouver, WA. USA 98663
Tel: (360) 992-2283; Fax: (360) 992-2863
"The people who cast the votes decide nothing.
The people who count the votes decide everything."
Josef Stalin
<http://www.aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/>http://www.aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com

Employer has no association with private/protected opinion
FREE LEONARD PELTIER!!


Hi Jim,

Please add my voice to the e-Forum at Clark regarding the indoctrination
process of Craven bashing.  I think my unique insights can explain in part
why so many of your colleagues, administration and staff suspend their
critical thinking skills when you're involved.  The fact that most of your
critics don't know the history behind the administration's fertilization
efforts is indicative of how deeply rooted the indoctrination process
is.  Thanks in advance.

Date:  February 12, 2003

To: Clark College Staff, Faculty, Staff, ASCC, Administration, Board,
Foundation, Foundation Board, and THE INDEPENDENT

From:  Emma Kim

RE:  An insider's perspective of your employee and civil rights as
practiced by some adminstrators at Clark

Many of you will remember me.  I worked in Personnel for [deleted] and
[deleted] as their Office Assistant III from January 1997 to March 12,
1999.  Several of you have asked me why I left the college.  I'm prepared
now to provide my answer.

For any employee who has felt like civil or employee rights were violated,
you were probably right if Clark's Personnel department was involved.  If
anyone has had their mental state questioned after speaking up or out about
an issue at the college, your experience is not an isolated one.  In fact,
there are number of you who've had your mental states questioned.  Based on
my interviews, the common thread is not depression but practicing your
freedom of speech to expose a problem at the college.

While I was employed in Personnel, I was privy to questionable hiring
practices and privy to the deliberate violations of civil rights.  For
anyone who has not know what "human resources" functions as, consider what
we as a society do to our natural resources and then you'll have a pretty
accurate context to determine your value relative to the power
structure.  As an HR Administrator, as I laid off 150 members of the
workforce, I advised the employees that as a rule of thumb, smile at the HR
people, get on their good side, but don't trust most of them.  That was
based on my experience with the HR Managers in two Fortune 500 companies I
worked for but mostly based on my experiences at Clark.  The role of HR
personnel is not to protect your rights but to protect the state or company
from litigation if rights are violated.  It is virtually impossible for any
Personnel manager to know all the state and federal employment laws and
their nuances, so employee rights are violated all the time.  Let me give
you specific examples from my two years at Clark.  What I'm about to
disclose may surprise you and create shifts in your thinking:

While I was an employee in Personnel, I was asked by [deleted] to engage in
a task that involved the violation of Jim Craven's civil and employee
rights.  The specific task was to send all his emails to the AG's
office.  (Mind you, not [deleted] or anyone else's emails, just Jim
Craven's stuff.  For those of you who might be wondering what's  wrong with
that, it is illegal to keep separate files on employees.  It is also
illegal to keep a separate file on anyone practicing their freedom of
speech as a dissenter or activst.)

It is important for the reader to know what my filters were at the time
when [deleted] tried to get me involved in violating his rights.  I was
highly critical,  vocal in my criticism and fearful of Jim.  I said and
held many of the negative sentiments that I continue to hear on campus and
continue to read and sense in print.  After all, I trusted my new
supervisors and coworkers when I was given the run down that Jim was
litigous, slanderous, manipulative, a trouble maker, unreasonable,
potentially violent and mean.  I also asked about [deleted] since his
emails were being distributed on the master list at the same time as
Jim's.  Unlike with Jim, I was given an objective run down on [deleted],
that he was caught with child pornography using state resources.  There was
no subjective demonization like, [deleted] is a creepy slimebag who will
eyeball your underaged children with a gleem in his eye."

Equally important for the reader to know in order to understand that Craven
bashing is an indoctrination process that all new employees go through as
part of an informal orientation, is how I felt about working in Personnel
for [deleted] and [deleted].   I thought I'd found two of the best bosses
ever in my work history.  Given those filters, I could see exactly what my
department was talking about in Jim's emails.

Despite my own prejudices which were extreme by my own admission, I clearly
understood that Jim's rights were being violated by the very officer
assigned to protect the college from discrimination and harassment.  I
refused and asked [deleted] why we were doing something we weren't suppose
to do to which she promptly replied with back peddling, "Oh, that's
okay.  You don't have to do it."  And that was the end of it, so I thought.

Shortly after my refusal to violate Jim's rights, a central part of my
duties that I performed for [deleted] was eliminated.  While I had been
privy to sensitive and private documents, all the tasks that included
touching or seeing such documents such as copying, faxing, etc. were
eliminated.  Concerned that [deleted] had eliminated my job duties as a
result of my refusal to violate Jim's rights, I brought up the elimination
of those duties to [deleted] who reassured me that changes occured "all the
time."   I was confused and tried to make sense of what was going on. I
felt conflicted about [deleted].  Was I working for an unethical
person?  How could I be?  [deleted] was married to an African-American
civil rights activist.  No, maybe I was just making a mountain out of a
molehill.  Maybe, [deleted] was right.   Why would [deleted] violate Jim's
rights?  No, way, she wouldn't do that.  She's the AA/EO officer.  These
were some of the thoughts that ran through my mind as I tried to make sense
of conflicting cues.   Through the process of denial, I eventually
rationalized that [deleted] intention was benevolent in trying to protect
the college from Jim, so I let the issue go.  After all, it was about Jim,
the campus dreg.

But, the red flag kept bleeding.  So, questions about Jim arose and I found
myself asking why Jim was so angry, why he was so hell bent on thumping
certain adminstrators.  What was this guy all about?  As I listened and
watched, I began to realize that there was more going on than what I'd
originally been told.  One of the things that seemed strange to me was that
I hadn't heard a single positive remark about Jim since I'd gotten
hired.  Even if an employee is not well liked, I have enough HR and
supervisory experience to know that with critics, there are also
supporters.  So where were all of Jim's supporters?  I had not met a single
supporter, not even amongst the tenured faculty.  I had heard that Jim was
well liked by students.  But that confused the issue for me even more.  Why
did the students like Jim, but why did Clark's employees detest him.  The
only thing I could do was watch and listen and read his emails thoughtfully.

In retrospect, it's ironic that [deleted] action was what turned on my
critical thinking circuitry and made me insatiably curious about what Jim
Craven was all about.      I was still vocally critical of Jim but given
human nature, I feared my supervisors would think I was beginning to
support him, so to alleviate any fear that I had subversive intentions,
which I didn't at the time, I told [deleted] and [deleted] that I wanted to
talk to Jim and get to know him.  In my naivete, I believed that these two
very educated officers would appreciate the fact that I was up front with
them and that I was taking initiative to gather information for myself
rather than continuing to go on hearsay.  After all, I worked in higher ed
where research and knowledge were suppose to be encouraged.  Direct
research is always better than with secondary or tertiary sources.

Neither discouraged me but each warned me to be careful.  [deleted]
reiterated that Jim could be very manipulative and that if given the
opportunity, he would twist my statements and use them against me or the
department.  Given the Craven myths, I was still fearful that Jim would
blow me me off as [deleted] and [deleted] "whore" just because I worked for
them.  But, I also had enough information by then to offer Craven the
benefit of doubt.  So, the OAIII from personnel knocked on his office door
one day and introduced herself.  "Hi Professor Craven?  My name is Emma Kim
and I work for [deleted] and [deleted]...."

Since that introduction, Jim and I have become close friends.  In fact, I
frequently describe him as one of my best friends.  I know his extended
family and he knows my husband, mother and 13 year old niece, Berlin.  He
helps out where he can with a 13 year old "at-risk" youth who I mentor who
is diagnosed with multiple disorders including ODD, bipolar affect
disorder, and ADHD.  I regret that I bought into the indoctrination because
for two years, the opportunities for developing our friendship were
wasted.  For two years, the opportunity to expand my mind from the great
books Jim's turned me onto were wasted.  For two years, the opportunity to
expand my political knowledge from our numerous political discussions were
wasted.  But most importantly and signifcantly, Jim was denied the benefit
of a supporter that could have made a difference in his life for two
years.  Clark's adminstration is directly responsible.  The waste cannot be
measured because our friendship is priceless.  I respect Jim so much and I
can't emphasize how troubled I am that so many of you continue to criticize
him when most of you have never taken the time as I did to research and
extrapolate the history of Jim's troubles at Clark.  I read numerous
documents and interviewed dozens of people.  Piece by piece, I put the
jigsaw puzzle together and what the picture revealed was a systematic
process the administration used to control dissenters.  I'm writing to
expose that pattern.  It is one the ACLU, US Dept of Education, Civil
Rights Division, WA Human Rights Commission and WA DOP is interested
in.  In fact, WA DOP stated to me unofficially that they were aware of a
possible problem at Clark but that they didn't have the resources to do
anything unless the problem reached a certain level.  I was encouraged by
WA DOP to write a letter to GAAPCOM!!!!

For the reader, given the time and space factor, I am editing out a
significant chunk of why I chose to leave the college.  The following
events took place after my refusal to violate Jim Craven's civil
rights.  The significant facts are these:

     1)  I experienced harassment for two months beginning from the moment
I walked into Personnel after my return from family leave by a coworker who
violated my rights under state and federal family leave acts.  That
coworker eventually confessed to harassing me saying that she was angry
with me for all the work I'd left her to do while I was gone despite the
fact that a former hr adminstrator named [deleted] had been hired as my
temporary replacement.  But when pressed to explain what work I'd left for
her, she was unable to list a single task that had made her angry enough to
harass me for two months upon my return and which made her angry enough to
have no consideration for the tremendous stress and burden I was under
while I was caring for family members, one of whom had Alzheimer's.

     2)  Despite being one of only two staff members with a college
degree, immediately upon my return, despite exellent documented reviews,
job history and ethics, my job duties as an OAIIII were eliminated.  Upon
my return from leave, I performed only OAI duties which were strictly
answering phones and helping people at the college. This elimination of job
duties was not a directive from my supervisors.  They didn't know my
training supervisor had eliminated the duties.  That fact surfaced when I
was given the following task:

     3)  When I returned from family leave, I was given a task with a
three month deadline to compile the affirmative action data for all
permanent positions for the past five years, which represented dozens of
positions.  The elimination of my job duties actually turned out to be a
godsend but as far as my supervisors were concerned, I was still expected
(via verbalization) to carry on my normal job duties which included
multiple walk ins and phone interruptions while trying to retrieve or
extrapolate data from half a dozen sources, some of which were located in
the back office, in other departments, in Olympia, and/or in various
mediums, electronic and hard copy.  (Picture yourself having to get up and
find files in another office or another department, bringing the files back
to the desk to analyze while people are walking in and phones are ringing,
then having to return the files once the information was found.  Picture
yourself having to do that multiple times several times a day as a part
time employee.)

On top of the logistics of data gathering, not a single person in my
deparment knew how to do the analysis from step 1 to the end.  So,
basically, I also had the task of figuring out how to compile aa data the
way Olympia expected it.   I'd never been given a deadline date, nor had
emphasis ever been placed on compiling the data until I returned from
leave.  Prior to taking family leave, I'd never been directed, let alone
pressured to start the task.  Given my work ethic, had the instruction been
given, I would have begun the analysis upon being assigned the task.

Given the deadline and since no one knew how to compile the data anyway,
[deleted] could have started the task while I was on leave.  That would
have provided an additional two months to make sure the baseline report was
done correctly.  If my coworker was truthful and she had "so much work" to
do while I was on leave, the inference is that [deleted] had very little to
do.  Keep in mind, that I was being harassed every day while I was
desperately trying to get the reports done in between phone calls and walk ins.

2)  [deleted], your new AA officer,  [deleted], not once but twice that I
was being harassed.

3)  Despite [deleted] disclosure to [deleted], neither [deleted] nor
[deleted] stopped the abuse.  I had to deal with my own hostile situation.

4)  When I asked  [deleted] why she didn't stop the harassment, she replied
that she didn't know about it.

5)  When I asked [deleted] why she didn't stop the harassment, she replied
that she didn't know about it.  Please refer to #2.

When [deleted] lied to me, I realized that if my supervisors, the
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Officer and the Director of Personnel
would not provide me with a hostile free work environment under their
supervision, I had no chance in the world to advance at Clark.  The fact
that I had to inform them of the harassment that was taking place under
their very noses and the fact that I had to ask for a hostile free work
environment says enough about their cultural ignorance, lack of skill and
failure to fulfill their duties as state officers to provide safety for one
of their few ethnic minorities on campus.

But that's only the beginning...

In January, 2000, I made an appointment with [past] President
[deleted].   If anyone remembers her email dated May 24, 2000, she talked
about the "mean spiritedness that  resides here at Clark..."  Her very last
statement in that email was, "If anyone would like to discuss these issues
with me I welcome your observations.  Please share them in person...I
promise to make time."

I'd been privy to civil rights violations and irregular hiring
practices.  Well, back in January, I had lots of information and concerns
about the mean-spiritedness at Clark.  So in the hour I met with her, I
delineated everything I knew about the civil rights and ethics violations
and questionable hiring practices including the hiring and promotions of
her friends, [deleted], [deleted] and [deleted] (who is given special
mention in [deleted] dissertation published in 1992 if memory serves me
correctly)  and the improperness of the Director of Personnel position that
[deleted] filled.  Of the administrators who engaged in the violations, I
named [deleted] and [deleted].  Of the administrators who abused their
adminstrative positions in the presence of classified employees, I named
[deleted] for her critical remarks and apathetic attitude about
multiculturalism at a state organized brain storming session in Federal Way
and [deleted] for engaging in Craven bashing at an informal network of
Clark women that was held in the rec room at the complex where [deleted]
lived, that included several classified staff.  If any reader is privately
saying that Janelle was just practicing her freedom of speech, I'd suggest
that you research the WAC that defines a state employees role during "off
hours."

Again, for sake of time and space, I'll eliminate significant history and
context.  To make a long story short and to make my point, [deleted]
thanked me for my courage to blow the whistle on these people and I
departed with [deleted] understanding that I would take advantage of the
rapport I'd built with the Clark community and gather more documentation to
present to her at a later time.

Then a curious thing happened.  On March 2, 2000, at 8:00 am, I received a
letter from Security.  The letter was sealed in a white envelope with 9:00
listed on the front.  Security was suppose to pull me from my first period
class to deliver the letter which was from the VP of Student Services.  But
one of my contacts had called me the night before and given me advanced
warning that I was about to get thumped so I took the initiative and went
directly to [deleted] office to talk to him.  I introduced myself to
[deleted] who said that Security had a letter for me from
[deleted].  That's how I got it an hour in advance of the scheduled
delivery time.  That letter said:

"March 1, 2000

Dear Emma Kim,

This letter is to inform you that a meeting with you and the Vice President
of Student Services has been scheduled for 11:00 am Thursday, March 2, 2000
in the Vice President's office in Gaiser Hall.  The meeting will address
some conduct issues, on your part, that have raised concern about your well
being.  Your attendance at the meeting is mandatory.

Should you desire to have another person present with you at the meeting
you may contact that person from the Vice President's office before the
meeting begins.

Sincerely,
[deleted]
Vice President of Student Services

I was completely shaken.  Recognizing this tactic from the practices I
observed in personnel and also recognizing that if I followed [deleted]
instructions, I'd never be able to find anyone who had the time in that
moment to take an hour to serve as my witness given the inherent
controversy and climate of fear at Clark.  So, I showed my first period
professor the letter and asked if he would serve as my witness.  Being
shocked by the tone of the letter, he agreed to cancel his class and attend
the meeting with me which was scheduled to immediately follow my next class
which was at 10:00.  I also called [deleted] and asked if she would serve
as my witness because she was the one who could confirm that she'd informed
[deleted] about the harassment and provide context as to the environment I
worked in.  She said she would but she didn't show up saying in a typed
note that said that she didn't feel she could be of any help inferring that
she knew what the meeting was about.

When I arrived at the meeting, aside from the faculty member who served as
my witness, there was another person present and I asked him to identify
himself.  He said his name was [deleted] and that he was Clark's resident
psychologist.  I asked why I was called to this meeting and why [deleted]
was present and [deleted] explained that he'd met with other administrators
who were concerned about activities I was engaged in at the college (like
the letter indicated) who were concerned that my activities were possibly a
danger to myself or to others which was why [deleted] was there.  I asked
who my accusers were and [deleted] said, 5 names deleted], .   Please bear
in mind that all the information that [deleted and [deleted] received was
second, third, and fourth hand information, the sources being the very
administrators I'd blown the whistle on including Tana since I addressed
the hiring and promotions of her friends during my meeting with
her.  [deleted], however, was involved in a different capacity.

Before I proceed, the reader should also know some facts.  [deleted] ph.d
dissertation was a study on PTSD experiences of college rape victims.  His
academic background is in guidance and counseling as is [deleted].  His
bibliography lists several studies on the effects of trauma.  Given his
background, please note the tone of his letter to me.  When I walked into
[deleted] office, there was a chair placed in the middle of his office that
was obviously for me.   To get a better graphic and "feel" of this
arrangement, picture a 120 pound 5'6" Korean woman, traditionally raised to
revere scholars, doctors, etc., jobless with no real economic power, a
college flunky several times over who took 11 years to get her BA degree
sitting in the middle of the VP of SS's office in a chair with my back
towards the door.  Seated directly in front of me are two white males,
[deleted] and [deleted] both with their legs spread wide open.  (I crossed
my legs.)  [deleted] must be about 6'3" or 6'4", over 220 (?) and [deleted]
must be about 6', over 250 (?) with ph.d's and economic power.  My witness
was seated to my right and was barely in my peripheral vision.

During the meeting, [deleted] acknowledged that the only thing I was
"guilty" of was practicing my academic freedom to assemble which was part
of the investigative work that I was going to present later to
[deleted].  [deleted] concluded that there was no problem.  And I was sent
on my not-so-merry way.

But that's not the end.

I respectfully requested an explanation as to what [deleted], [deleted],
[deleted] and [deleted] said that caused [deleted] to think I was a danger
to myself and possibly to others.  The WAC's, P&P's listed in the back of
the college catalogue clearly outlines what to do if an employee believes
that someone is a possible danger to self or others.  The rule wasn't
followed.  If [deleted], [deleted], [deleted] or [deleted] felt that I was
a danger to myself or to others at the time I spoke to them, Security
should have been called to excort me off campus.  But remember, I hadn't
talked to these adminstrators for two months.   Whenever I crossed paths
with them, if close enough, I received waves or eye contact and a
"hello."  I never got the impression from any of these adminstrators when I
saw them that they thought I was a danger to myself or to others.  Why
would I be a danger to myself or others?  Has anyone on campus ever felt
that I was a danger?

Following my meeting with [deleted] and the resident clinical psychologist,
I asked a permanent security officer if my name had ever been brought
up.  Given the spontaneous reaction and response, I believed that officer
who said that my name had never been mentioned in Security.  The telling
response was when I was asked why.  The college catalogue also states the
discrimination policy for those with actual or perceived disablities.  I
was perceived to have a mental illness and I was forced to meet with the
resident clinical psychologist.  That was a blatant violation of my civil
rights.

I respectfully asked multiple times for an explanation of the
administrative action against me.

I was met with silence.

Weeks later, I started hearing from classified staff that couple of the
same adminstrators were slandering me and instructing staff not to talk to
me because I was mentally unstable.

I started feeling angry.

I kept asking politely for accountabilty.  I was met with continued
silence.  I asked not so politely for accountabilty.  Then [deleted] lied
to me about [deleted] saying I couldn't meet with him because he was out of
town, but when I tried to make an appointment to see him after his return,
[deleted] finally fessed up and said that I was not allowed to meet with
him, period.  [deleted] got sucked into the cesspool that [deleted],
[deleted], [deleted], [deleted] and [deleted] created proving the point
that bad money pushes out good money when she discriminated against me in
her misguided attempt to protect [deleted].

After months of silence after repeatedly requesting the adminstration's
accountability, I finally got ticked off and I sent emails to all the
parties blasting them for their hypocrisy, lack of backbone and integrity.

For embarassing these adminstrators and [deleted] and exposing the Judases
within,  [deleted] violated my rights again and sent me another letter,
dated May 25, 2000, the day after [deleted] email about mean spiritedness,
the day of [deleted] presentation on remembering history so as not to
repeat the same mistakes in race relations.  That letter read:

Dear Ms. Kim:

This is to notify you that an initial disciplinary proceeding  has been
scheduled for you on Wednesday, May 31, 2000 at 2:00 p.m.  The hearing will
be with [deleted], Vice President of Student Services, in his office, and
will address the following violations of the Code of Student Conduct:

1.   Disorderly, abusive and bothersome conduct.  Disorderly or abusive
behavior which interferes with the rights of others or which obstructs or
disrupts teaching, research, or adminstrative functions.

The range of penalties for such violations may range from disciplinary
warning to disciplinary suspension.

Please not that your absence does not prevent the imposition of sanctions.

...Sincerely,

[deleted]
Secretary Senior
Vice President of Student Services Office.

In [deleted] own words, "After reading and evaluating the numerous
electronic mail messages you have sent to [deleted], [deleted], and myself,
it became apparent that you are violating the Clark College Code of Student
Conduct....Specifically, you are engaging in abusive and bothersome conduct
which interferes with the rights of others or which obstructs or disrupts
administrative function.  Your language in these e-mails is being
interpretted as abusive and bothersome and it has negatively impacted both
staff and administrators on this campus.  Frequently, your words are
insulting, annoyting, and have caused people to be anxious and concerned...."

[deleted] placed me on disciplinary warning which is still in my student
file.  Of course, he placed the warning without due process.  I'd responded
to his initial letter saying I would not make the scheduled meeting because
I would be out of town.  I didn't explain; it was none of his business.

Without giving me an opportunity to reschedule and without asking for a
reason why I missed the hearing, [deleted] passed judgement quickly and
gave me a formal warning without due process.  Now, I'll explain why I
couldn't make the meeting.  My grandmother had taken a fall and was in a
nursing home.  She'd taken a turn for the worse and the doctors advised the
family members to see her because they thought she might die at any
time.  My entire extended family was meeting in Bellingham; that's where I
was going.  It was already planned and relatives from California were
already in Bellingham.  That's why I was not going to my disciplinary
hearing.  I felt seeing my grandmother was more important.  I don't know
why I was never given an opportunity to reschedule.  I guess that's the
reason that a WAC exists that states that an authority who has direct
involvement in a situation should not be the authority imparting sanctions
in the same situation.  It's a conflict of interest.

The reader may be tempted to believe that what happened to me was an
isolated incident but it was and is not.  Unfortunately, in my research,
the pattern was the same for virtually every person who said they spoke up
about some issue at the college.  The most egregious action was the use
of  mental illness as slander which the adminstration passes on to key
staff members who repeat the process to their coworkers who pass the
slander to others till it takes on a life of it's own like in Jim Craven's
case.  The adminstration knows that once the slander is embedded, it will
eventually get passed on to new employees as they learn the culture at
Clark.  At that point, the dissenter is no longer seen as a concerned
employee of the college, but as a pariah and evil-doer.  If you don't
believe the adminstration is capable of using these tactics, remember that
five top level adminstrators met to talk about me and they continue to
maintain a conspiracy of silent.  I have yet to learn what slander was
passed along about me during that meeting.  [deleted] did reveal one
component when I caught her off guard after the [deleted]
presentation.  She said that one of the adminstrators said that I'd said
that I was packing a gun around in a purse.  This is simply absurd.  I
never said or remotely suggested anything about a gun or a gun in a
purse.  Yet that came directly from the President. I don't even own a purse.

In defense of my friend Jim Craven, I respectfully ask every critic to take
off your prejudicial filters and not form an opinion about Jim unless
you've done your homework.  Everything that happened to me happened after I
defended Jim.   I will let the reader conclude whether the elimination of
job duties, [deleted] lie, being forced to meet with the resident clinical
psychologist, receiving a disciplinary warning, and being met with
continued silence was related to my refusal to violate Jim's civil rights.

If anyone has a response or would like more information or if you want to
add your story to my research, please feel free to contact me a
nomads3k9s@xxxxxxx  Activism works!  Four out of the five adminstrators who
targeted me are no longer employed by the college.

And finally, a special note to [deleted]:

[deleted], I regret that you denied me an appointment time to discuss these
issues with you in private.  I informed you that my allegations were of a
serious nature.  I've tried for 2 1/2 years to get accountability as to why
I was forced to meet with [deleted].  [deleted] created the problem you're
now facing with me but I don't have the time or the patience any more to
deal privately with this matter.  I'm sure you asked who I was.  Those
closest to you probably provided the answer.  And depending on who that
person or persons are/were, you may have heard the slander.  If you would
like to meet with me, I will do so but only with other long time civil
rights activists.  Two years ago,  I did an analysis of all the colleges in
the SBTCC system and Clark was the only institution that lost diversity in
every single category post I-200.  The losses occurred at a time when the
ethnic diversity was rapidly gaining in this county.  Since I did that
analysis, more losses have occurred at the college.  DOP is sending the
documents for the current year and I will note any changes.

To THE INDEPENDENT:  I encourage the college paper to do an investigative
report of my allegations.  I challenge you to find any misrepresentations
or mistruths in my allegations.  Because of the affiliation with the
college, I will not provide you with sources.   I will pass along my
sources to a bona fide investigative reporter.



--

www.marxmail.org


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism