[PEN-L:1814] Columbian article.

[Nativejmc@xxxxxxx Mon, 21 Dec 1998 20:37:04 +1900 (EST)]

The Columbian article on my case illustrates some painful realities: a) when
journalists uncritically act as stenographers for those whose patronage and
special access they require for further stories and "scoops" and when the
focus is on personalities rather than issues--within filler spaces around
advertising called newsspace--injustices and cover-ups are often compounded.

The article mentions the cases of  Elman McClain and Dennis Watson as if their
cases were parallel therefore suggesting my treatment is not unprecedented.
Nothing is further from the truth.

Elman McClain was Chief of Security who went up against the present Vice-
president of Administration over the issue of campus lighting. The vice-
president proposed shutting off campus lighting earlier to save some $8,000
per year while McClain argued that this would involve increased security risks
and that one lawsuit would easily wipe out the $8,000 saving. Shortly after
this, McClain was charged with sexual harassment. As he fought these charges,
additional charges of use of campus internet to view pornography were piled on
to leverage the original charges (this is the typical modus operandi at Clark)
Even solicitations for anything additional on McClain went out. McClain was
fired and he and his lawyer claimed that he was entitled to an administrative
hearing. After costly litigation, an Administrative Law Judge ordered that he
must be given a dismissal hearing; but, he had already been fired before his
due process rights had been exhausted. It is interesting to note that while
all of this was going on, McClain was given a positive reference for a
position on the Las Vegas Police force, thus beggining the question: Which
was/is the lie--that he was unfit for Clark or unfit for the Las Vegas Police
force?

The resulting settlement was supposed to be sealed--but his guilt was never
proved through full and competent investigatory processes. This Clark
Administration however, contemptuous of basic human and due process rights
would now suggest--assuming the reporter got this from the Clark Admin and
that is a good assumption from the details or pseudo-details given--that
McClain was fired through due process and having to do with pornography on the
internet. In other words, a desperate and disingenuous administration, coupled
with a reporter acting as a compliant stenographer and not checking basic
facts and contexts, further defamed and harmed Mr. McClain. Why the settlement
if he was so clearly guilty and due process was followed in removing him?

In the case of Watson, one of the charges leveled against him and for which he
was acquitted was misappropriation of government resources in using the
computer to collect child pornography (and according to the Washington State
Patrol he was not only downloading, he was actively/predatorially soliciting
polaroids using Clark.edu). In his case, nothing was made of his business
being "personal" only that the marginal costs of computer use on a bulk-rate
system were zero or negligible. Again, these basic facts went unchecked and
unchallenged. In fact, as a result of complaints by me about harassment by
Watson--through spoofed accounts and pseudonymns--brought nothing from Hasart
in terms of the scrutiny to which I was subject--this reporter had an e-mail
from Hasart professing concern about harassment from Watson and indicating
commitment to investigate and do something about it.

Further, Hasart claims there was a credible threat and credible basis to
believe that the College was threatened with potential legal exposure and
liability in the event of a lawsuit for defamation by Kevin Annett. Repeated
inquiries as to Annet's legal Counsel's name has met with no response from the
Administration. Further, repeated requests for specific evidence--more than
Annett's assertions or allegations--used to establish that the College has
legal exposure has brought no result. Further, truth is an absolute and
complete defense against libel, slander and defamation and therefore for
Hasart to suggest (and summarily convict me of while remaining a reviewing
authority) misuse of college resources and producing legal exposure for the
college suggests that I indeed did commit defamation or slander or libel.
Nowhere in the article does the reporter mention that I categorically deny
this and that people like Michele Cheung and members of the Circle of Justice
with personal knowledge about the issues all wrote to Hasart to say that I
indeed had told the truth.

Plato noted a long time ago: "Those who seek power are invariably the least
fit to wield it." That is why those in power hate exposure, accountability or
penetrating questions. Most of them are intellectually mediocre and have
something to hide. They are used to raw power, lies, cover-ups, intimidation,
empty schmoozing, favored insiders/toadies, compliant press and a few
competent functionaries to cover-up their own incometence and duplicity. In
the Ed business, at the highest levels we find the opportunists and operators
who go through quickie "Ed Leadership" PhD programs and network into positions
as if real leadership and credibility could be conferred/legitimated with a
degree as opposed concrete skills, knowledge and example.

Of the letters sent to Hasart, I know of only one response: Long Standing Bear
Chief, a fellow blackfoot at Browning got a response when she thought she
could pile on even more evidence that I was supposedly lining up paid
employment at Browning through the campus internet (actually it was an
exchange program proposal between Clark and Browning I mentioned to her and
she encouraged--just like my work on Residential Schools which was encouraged
by Hasart).

Anyway, thanks to all for your support and help. Although many of you who
wrote to Hasart and who hold credentials she could never hope to hold will get
no response from the etherial powers-that-be at Clark, your ideas stand on
their own and need no confirmation from anyone.

I have told the truth and need not remember what I have said and to whom and
when I said it. The powers-that-be at Clark are not in such an enviable
position--of their own making. Just like Clinton and and as with members of
the previous regime at Clark--a site to behold--the disingenuousness will come
home to roost when tested through thorough and unrelenting examination and
cross-examination there will be more and more to explain and perhaps attempt
to cover-up. This time however, no sealed settlement.

These are my constitutionally-protected opinions made on the best evidence
available to me and to which I invite rebuttal or correction. They are made
without malice and of course my employer has no association--in terms of
agreement or disagreement--with my potected opinions.

Jim Craven