Sherking Responsibility

This apologia (formal defense and justification but not in any sense an apology) addresses the concerns of many professors and public intellectuals who often worry about damaging the profession to which they have given most of their lives. It describes aberrant and unlawful behavior by administrators and faculty members at University of Washington and shows how the profession has already suffered irrevocable damage.

Compromised principles for personal gain and academic privilege without merit.

The story relates particularly to Helen Adelaide Sherk [$92,604.00], Professor, Department of Biological Structure, School of Medicine, University of Washington. In my opinion, Sherk classifies as a disgusting person completely devoid of ethics, in fact, the story describes a number of disgusting people. (All salaries quoted per annum or annualized).

In fairness, readers should realize that Sherk does not stand alone in corruption and deceit. She exemplifies the behavior that permeates much of the University of Washington and other institutions.

Mark A. Emmert [$470,000.00], UW President, receives several mentions intended to hold him harmless. He has had his new job for only a few months and inherited most of the problems described. His actions during the next twelve months will determine whether he comes from the same sty as his administrators by granting them impunity, maintaining political silence, or taking action to mitigate damage. [Impunity] [Conspiracy of Silence]

This article particularly describes participation in an illegal kangaroo court by Sherk and other individuals. It also alludes to her academic publishing misconduct pending a further peer review delayed by her failure to cooperate. In her discipline, Sherk explores “populations of neurons in the motion pathway specialized for visual guidance of locomotion in cats” whatever that means. In feline parlance, she works in a UW cathouse.

Academic ethics need forensic investigation by journalists and lawyers independent of the academe who do not have a conflict of interest. The fourth estate can establish greater credibility by refuting the findings of kangaroo courts and exposing the phony processes of self-evaluation and accreditation that exist in both public and private universities.

I do not claim independence in evaluating the circumstances surrounding the experiences I describe and as a journalist declare a conflict of interest. However, the public would never learn about these circumstances without that conflict. Reporting academic malfeasance has to result from inside knowledge.

To overcome the ethical dilemma, I possess copies of documents which will stand independent scrutiny that support all statements. I worked as a professor, administrator, academic editor, and faculty committee member, at several top universities. This provides me with an insight into the patterns and practices prevalent at most universities where blackballing, deceit, and hypocrisy establish the order of the day.

Traditionally, the public has believed that academic exposé describes isolated instances of aberrant behavior and forgivingly classifies them as “mistakes”. It does not realize that corruption and injustice form part of the everyday fabric of life on most campuses.

Rewarding tenure track professors, or people bucking for promotion, for sitting on committees and kangaroo courts that destroy colleagues and denying due process of law has become a common practice. It allows dishonest and incompetent people to gain tenure and promotion.

Self-governing privileges granted by legislatures allow administrators to misuse lawful procedures for political purposes. Participants in kangaroo courts can do nothing but follow the dictates of administrators preferring charges. If committees hold a fair hearing that exonerates the “accused” then committee members do not receive their reward.

Administrators create unjust governing systems that cause justice and injustice to fight for ascendancy. A battle wages one against the other.¹ Victory predicates upon the resistance and tenacity of those without power who rely upon their capacity to endure pain, humiliation, and misery.²

Progress in academic careers requires even professors with merit to pander to administrators with power. Faculty members have allowed their academic freedom to erode for several decades through lethargy and apathy. They now pay the price for abdicating their responsibilities and the commercialization of the academe.

Appointment to committees usually rests with department chairs. They make selections based upon a need for promotion not on due process of law or knowledge of the particular problem under discussion. Virtually no appeal of committee decisions exists because the same administrators that bring false charges also make appellate decisions.

People outside the academe have virtually no idea of denial of due process of law and surreal behavior that commonly exists. They do not realize that they support widespread corruption and inflated administrative salaries paid out of exorbitant tuition and taxes. They make no connection between academic totalitarianism (cultism) and the lifetime financial and tax expenditures to which they have shackled themselves.

Things have not changed much in three centuries. Mandeville aptly described the behavior that exists in the academe today:

Ashamed of the many frailties they feel within, all men endeavour to hide themselves, their ugly nakedness, from each other, and wrapping up the true motives of their hearts in the specious cloak of sociableness [collegiality], and their concern for the public good, they are in hopes of concealing their filthy appetites and the deformity of their desires.³

If faculty members maintain a conspiracy of silence about unlawful acts then eventually the reputation of the whole profession suffers. Unfortunately, the public identifies the innocent with the guilty when details of corruption eventually surface. [Conspiracy of Silence]

Ethical faculty members often ask themselves whether they should overlook blatant abuses of power by university officials. They wonder whether they should cover up to give the appearance of justice or reveal what they know to insure due process and freedom of expression. Very few choose the latter option.

Those who recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize the voice of justice.⁴ They realize that justice makes democracy possible and injustice makes it necessary.⁵ They understand that justice delayed means justice denied which translates into justice subverted. They know that at most universities a love of justice amounts to nothing more than a fear of injustice.⁶ Ignorance allied with power has become the principal enemy.⁷ [Justice Delayed: Justice Denied]

All three branches of Washington state government manipulate laws to grant public officials impunity. Decisions on frivolous lawsuits and formal hearings that they initiate profligate as flawed case law and unjust precedents.⁸ Then lawyers rely upon the maxim that whatever has gone before may legally happen again. They take care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and general reason to support the defense of future injustice.⁹ This probably leaves ethical journalism as the only vehicle that allows the public to understand how public and private academic institutions operate. [Impunity]

Macaulay exaggerated reporters' power when he referred to the House of Commons reporters' gallery as a "fourth estate of the realm." However, his comment provided some idea of the press role as a watchdog over academic malfeasance.¹⁰ The Chronicle of Higher Education and a few alternative and independent newspapers serve as bastions of reporting integrity. The campus press, student publications, and alumni magazines, have all become censored media that serve the interests of university officials and the commercial elite that supports them. [In Memoriam]

Even societies like Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) have campus chapters staffed or controlled by administrators and professors who routinely use rigid censorship and prior restraint to control the output of student reporters. This particularly applies at University of Washington where officials rigidly enforce political correctness (pC) to favor propaganda. [Political Correctness]

The job of media remains one of encouraging debate and not merely supplying the public with information.¹¹ Past failures have contributed immensely to the emergence of the present talk-show mentality with its ranting and posturing. This has created a netherworld that allows a totalitarian presence on most campuses¹² which allows a massive cover-up of wrongdoing through censorship, prior restraint, and silent withholding of public records. [Prior Restraint] [Silent Withholding]

Political silence denies knowledge of malpractice extant among university officials and excises public memory of past injustice.¹³ Without unrestricted press freedom and assembly, without a struggle of opinion, accumulation of knowledge ceases. The bureaucracy, with its propaganda, remains the only active element. [Satire and Affect]

Prior restraint and censorship insure that a few despots, with boundless Machiavellian experience, rule in secret under the guise of democracy.¹⁴ Real democracy disintegrates and nothing remains safe when officials do not bear public scrutiny.¹⁵ Eternal press vigilance has become the only mainstay.¹⁶

Academic Totalitarianism

Academic communities that refuse to accept government by law turn to force and fraud.¹⁷ Appeals to sympathy or justice amount to nothing when one deals with Orwellian Napoleons like Steven G. Olswang [$173,880.00], Vice Provost, or sycophants like Sherk.

Hans Frank, a leading Nazi politician and academician, claimed that in every decision officials and lawyers should ask the questions:

How would the Führer decide in my place?

Is this decision compatible with the National Socialist conscience of the German people?

Frank made his speech to jurists in 1936. At the time he held concurrent positions as Commissioner of Justice and President of the German Law Academy. Later he became Governor-general of Poland where he established concentration camps and conducted a policy of persecution and extermination.¹⁸

Frank said that by self-questioning they would recognize the will of Adolf Hitler and could endow their own future for all time under his authority. Many UW officials ask themselves similar questions then make decisions based upon the convoluted policies of their führers which causes injustice.

Many policies at UW follow the Frank dictum. Arbitrary practices deny due process in favor of political expediency. Officials indulge in a massacre of minds based upon an orgy of special group preference, self-aggrandizement, and greed. [Political Correctness]

Eventually, every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves and every community gets the kind of law enforcement upon which it insists.¹⁹ Fortunately, academic führers have a tendency to self-destruct with a little help from the media.

Apologia - included to obviate editorial conflict of interest.

I declare a personal interest as the subject of five kangaroo courts held at UW over an eight-year period in absentia. These “courts” found me "guilty" of a "crime" based upon immoral and illegal claims based upon manufactured evidence. Each time they denied due process of law and an appeal.

Helen Sherk and others predicated charges upon “evidence” manufactured by the late Marsha L. Landolt, Dean, Graduate School, and Professor (then Associate Professor) Judith A. Ramey [$132,288.00*], now chair Department of Technical Communication, College of Engineering. Olswang consistently choreographed proceedings and coached other seemingly pathological liars to act out surreal scripts.

Elizabeth L. Feetham [$128,520.00], now acting dean of the graduate school where she continues to cover up her malfeasance - a person light on academic achievement and lighter on ethics - complemented the production team. [Thespian Liar] [Elizabeth’s Machination]

Ramey deliberately railroaded a professor of equivalent academic rank by using trumped up charges and her position as a public official to deny a fair hearing. Her accomplices Landolt, Feetham, and Lee L. Huntsman [$340,008.00], Provost, (with help from Olswang) denied an appeal and Ramey received a promotion to full professor and department chair.

Ramey’s annualized salary jumped from [$70,536.0 to $132,288.00] (1996-2005). For comparison, her annual salary increase over the preceding three years averaged $2,368.00. Ramey stands alone as the instigator of an extensive illegal scenario now that her confederate Landolt has moved on to a warmer clime. Olswang’s salary jumped from [$94,656.00 to $173,880] during the same period [In Memoriam]

Effectively, University of Washington dismissed me from its Special Doctor of Philosophy (SPhD) program without cause or due process of law; then officials deliberately denied me an opportunity to appeal the decision. I publish the full details of the surreal behavior of these public employees as a warning to other people who may consider studying at UW or joining the faculty. [Kafka - The Trial]

	iJames D Nason iEvidence Tampering

Helen A. Sherk and her accomplice William M. McGovern [$89,424.00*], then associate professors now professors, enforced an academic lynching set up by Landolt, Feetham, Olswang, and Ramey. They took part in a kangaroo court that resulted in expulsion of a former associate professor from a PhD program using trumped up charges while he suffered from pneumonia. They had a doctor’s certificate on file to that effect which they ignored and took full advantage of my illness. They had me arbitrarily dismissed from the university in absentia. [Medical Certificate]

In a massive cover-up, Landolt destroyed transcripts and other records that showed that I had completed all my PhD work with a 4.0 GPA. She then bribed a lowly, unauthorized classified state employee, Marsha J. Hanks [$43,428.00], to sign off her actions. Later, realizing that Hanks did not have the authority as classified staff to sign documents, Landolt retroactively promoted her to professional staff to try to cover up the illegal action.

I hold documents signed by a SPhD doctoral committee affirmed by twelve other UW professors. Letters from William D. Winn [$111,312.00*], SPhD Committee Chair, show that I completed all courses and published peer-reviewed papers. I also wrote two PhD dissertations that Winn approved. That committee has breached its contract with me and stands liable for civil legal action in addition to criminal charges. [Introduction and Overview] [Selected Publications]

Winn’s written answer to an inquiry by US Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, that related to a fully documented complaint about the kangaroo court, and Olswang’s subsequent machination to have that complaint quashed, evidence these contentions.

Sherk and her coterie effectively ended my sixty-year career as a writer/researcher, CEO, and professor without ever meeting me or questioning UW motives. Their unreasoned actions have since denied me a livelihood. (As one can see, I continue to write for the public good and now get 100,000 hits on a regular monthly basis on this web site).

I gave Sherk three opportunities to mitigate the damage that she caused to my reputation and professional standing before I went public with the details of her alleged crimes. Sherk ignored those offers. Her former department chair, Anita E. Hendrickson [$109,958.00], and her current chair John I. Clark [$194,712.00] have ignored similar opportunities to mitigate damage.

In law, their joint and several actions (or inaction) probably make Hendrickson an accessory before the fact and both Hendrickson and Clark accessories after the fact. As public employees they must address issues but willfully neglect to do so which construes as malfeasance.

Fat-Cat Clark has an administrative responsibility for the Sherk cathouse. Departmental interests divide roughly into four groups of which the cathouse forms a significant part. NIH, NSF, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, USDA, National Library of Medicine, and private foundation grants fund these activities.

Sherk claims that her work aims at understanding how the mammalian visual system works, particularly at the level of the visual cortex. She says that she explores populations of neurons in the motion pathway for visual guidance of locomotion in cats. She claims to change a cat's simulated direction and speed and changes in gaze - a truism validated by her photograph and cat-like disposition.

Hendrickson’s involvement with Landolt in Sherk’s appointment to the kangaroo court remains unclear due to her failure to comment or respond to an email interview. Clark has not acknowledged requests for records and has apparently silently withheld them. Instead of sending copies of open records, he sent an email message asking for removal from the email list. Apparently, he does not want to hear about problems that affect his faculty that he may have inherited from Hendrickson.

As a public servant, he must receive official communications from the public and must face up to the responsibilities of his taxpayer-funded position. He may not duck issues by retiring into denial. Ramey tried a similar ploy by refusing certified mail. [Silent Withholding]

Sherk made a malicious decision. She ignored findings that showed probable cause after a nine-month investigation by an independent ACLU cooperating attorney into a previous kangaroo court. A committee of ACLU attorneys later recognized denial of constitutional rights based upon that investigation, scheduled hearings, and appointed a cooperating attorney to handle the case.

Alleged collusion between Julya Hampton, an ACLU manager, and attorneys Steven Olswang and/or Carol S. Niccolls [$143,580.00] (now Executive Assistant to President Emmert) caused cancellation of the ACLU hearings sua sponte (on a whim or by devious means). Similar collusion to deny due process occurred during an investigation by Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. Both organizations reversed decisions and denied due process based upon machination by these attorneys.

Niccolls allegedly accepted an unlawful appointment from former president Richard L. McCormick as his executive assistant after her involvement with Huntsman in negotiating McCormick’s employment contract. Documents indicate a blatant quid pro quo. State law precludes assistant attorney generals from accepting employment offered by individuals or institutions for whom they negotiated contracts as state actors.

Following the appointment of McCormick (a dubious situation allegedly based upon false credentials), Niccolls received an immediate appointment as his executive assistant and a hike in salary [from $43,200.00 to $93,699.00 then to $143,580.00]. Attorney General Christine O. Gregoire (now Washington State Governor) sent Niccolls a cute personal note congratulating her on her unlawful appointment instead of reprimanding her.

Did Emmert know of this machination when he inherited Niccolls from McCormick? If he did not then he knows now along with about 500,000 other readers.

Did Niccolls have a hand in Emmert’s appointment also? Her latest salary hike indicates that could have occurred - a pattern or practice of unlawful behavior by Niccolls definitely exists.

Emmert’s full disclosure about these issues will give him credibility in an otherwise dismal environment. It seems very unusual that a new president did not clean house and employ a person with integrity. With a $150,000.00 budget, he could have whomever he wanted instead of picking up McCormick’s damaged goods.

Sherk disregarded her responsibility as a public official to make an unbiased evaluation of facts. Instead, she distorted them for personal political advantage. She has since gained promotion to professor and received lucrative grants and salary increases.

Sherk decided that I had not made satisfactory progress towards completion of a master's degree in the Department of Technical Communication (TC) - a program in which I had not enrolled. I had enrolled and completed all the requirements for a Special Doctor of Philosophy (SPhD) degree and earned a 4.0 GPA. The only connection that I had with TC related to administration. SPhD candidates must have a departmental affiliation for administration purposes. TC seemed the logical choice. That department had no authority over my academic progress - my SPhD committee chair supervised my PhD work.

	Rensselaer The Big Lie by Lee L Huntsman

Landolt, in a consort with Feetham destroyed university records and my transcript so that Huntsman could deny an appeal. Feetham, originally represented herself as head of the UW SPhD program and interviewed me for entry into it. She later falsely claimed in writing that I did not possess a Rensselaer degree despite the Rensselaer transcript on my file. [The Big Lie]

Feetham had a personal stake in denying due process to evade exposure of her previous unlawful actions. Landolt tried to appoint her to chair the kangaroo court despite her position as director of the SPhD program. After a protest, Feetham recused herself and Landolt replaced her with Nason. [Elizabeth’s Machination]

In an attempt to cover up gross malfeasance that resulted from the kangaroo court, Huntsman conspired with Olswang, Landolt and Feetham to manufacture denial of a formal appeal. Ramey, a person with very little academic merit, “earned” promotion to professor and an obscene increase in salary for her participation in this scam. Silent withholding of documents played a large part in the enigma. Gregoire has since stonewalled an appeal of the decision made by that “court” thereby denying due process of law for eight years. [Silent Withholding]

After the record purging, Huntsman wrote to confirm the finding of the kangaroo court using language composed by Olswang knowing that it contained false and misleading statements:

The University records show you were not admitted to any Doctoral program at the University of Washington and that all issues related to these denials of admission were long since resolved from the University's perspective. You were admitted, in 1991, to the Masters Degree Program in Technical Communication in the College of Engineering. As a masters student, you were to meet the requirements of that degree within the six year time-frame required by normal Graduate School rules. Despite your enrolling for many credits over these last six years, you failed to meet virtually any of the stated course requirements for the Masters Degree in Technical Communication. You were duly notified of these academic deficiencies. You were given an opportunity to have a hearing to consider your reasons for failing to complete your degree in a timely manner, however, you personally elected not to attend the hearing.²⁰

A ludicrous statement considering that I incorporated (1957) the first and largest technical communication and graphic design companies in London. I also taught technical and graphic communication at graduate level for seventeen years while earning two PhDs with 3.85 and 4.0 GPAs, albeit hindered by individuals like Ramey, Feetham, Landolt, and Huntsman.

Huntsman, with his completely false scenario, choreographed a massive cover up of multiple malfeasance by UW officials and denied due process of law. He must qualify as the highest paid, taxpayer-funded, liar and hypocrite on the UW campus.

Huntsman introduced an inapplicable six year time-frame after the fact. Copies of the documents and transcripts Landolt destroyed verify entry into the SPhD program and appointment of a doctoral committee. Copies of letters that Winn wrote as chair of the SPhD committee shortly before the kangaroo court “hearing” validate satisfactory completion of SPhD work including two dissertations. [Winn]

	Mark P Haselkorn UW SPhD Mafia

I attended UW to complete a PhD at the personal invitation of Mark P. Haselkorn [$107,688.00*], formerly chair, Department of Technical Communication, whom I met at an IEEE conference when we both served as IEEE associate editors. He suggested that I accept a faculty position in his department and concurrently work on a PhD.

He knew that I had already completed similar PhD work at Rensselaer and has had intimate knowledge with Winn of university machination from the outset. They have evidently both conspired to maintain political silence which allegedly makes them accessories before and after the fact to felonies and guilty of malfeasance.

Prior to accepting Haselkorn’s invitation and relocating to Seattle, I held a Rensselaer MS in rhetoric and communication along with other credentials. The Rensselaer curriculum almost matches the UW program. I also completed a PhD and taught a Rensselaer graduate course for IBM executives at Kingston, NY.

I taught graduate courses in technical and graphic communication for many years at five other US universities after completing 25 years as a technical communication executive including a variety of positions as CEO. At one of those universities I received the highest student evaluations in the division and a personal plaudit from a dean much to the chagrin of politically connected professors.

I held European terminal letters recognized by four US universities and Department of Education agents as terminal degree equivalencies and two international fellowships. Gene L. Woodruff, formerly Dean and Vice Provost, UW Graduate School, verified those qualifications with an agency accredited by the US Department of Education after investigating a frivolous challenge to them by Richard S. Neel, Associate Dean, UW College of Education. Four other US universities have also validated them.

Readers will ask: Why would a person with so many qualifications both academic and professional enroll for a masters degree when he already held two almost identical graduate degrees in the same discipline?

The answer - I did not enrol in a masters program, instead, I enrolled in a SPhD program. Extant copies of documents that Landolt and others destroyed prove that contention.

Surreal claims by this group of academic whores do not stand up in the light. They found Kafkaesque behavior the only way that they could stop UW granting a PhD to a professor with many more qualifications, experience, and publications than they possessed themselves. Jealousy, self-aggrandizement, arrogance, and avarice, play a large part in this scenario as readers can determine from the promotions and bloated salaries that they allegedly received for their unlawful, behavior. The crimes that they committed carry long prison terms upon conviction.

Academic Publications

It stands to reason that people who act with such a disregard for law and in such a despicable fashion would not act ethically in academic matters. This thought prompted an investigation into Sherk’s academic background. As a former IEEE associate editor, I conducted an initial analysis of Sherk’s academic publications using Society for Neuroscience (SFN) criteria. Sherk continues to deliberately frustrate that analysis by not responding to questions or answering correspondence. This has only reinforced the initial assumption that she had something to hide.

After three opportunities, she has neither provided details regarding her publications nor information relating to her grants. This has prevented a full analysis of her papers to see whether they comply with the SFN Policy on Ethics.²¹ SFN rules state that fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, jeopardizes the success of the entire scientific endeavor.

Primary responsibility for considering and resolving allegations of scientific misconduct generally lies within the individual academic communities and institutions that carry out scientific work. SFN supports the principle that academic institutions should develop and have in place procedures to deal with allegations of scientific misconduct. UW acquiesces to those practices and grants impunity when politically expedient as in the case of Richard L. McCormick and his wife Suzanne D. Lebsock. [Oh, What a Tangled Web She Weaves]

Peer-evaluation rarely works when collusion occurs between people who cannot write and desperately need published work to support promotion. They either plagiarize or employ others to write for them. As an IEEE editor, I received several papers for publication with entreaties to publish them which bears out this contention. I lost an academic editorial position after six years because I would not conform to political dictates which required me to bend ethics to publish that scientific garbage.

Many academics (Sherk and Ramey in particular) have published multiple-authored papers that have no significant intellectual or practical contribution to scientific work. Some have "honorary authorship" by either taking a ride on student work or granting authorship to people who have made no substantive contribution.

Sherk has apparently submitted and published articles or abstracts to multiple journals without disclosing duplication or drawing attention to previously published work. Specifically, published data presented as part of a new manuscript, or for comparison purposes, needs explicit notice to previously published work not just a line citing the publication. Anything less gives a false impression. Authors have a personal responsibility to declare possible conflicts at the outset to insure acknowledgment of relevant prior discoveries in manuscripts submitted for publication [Sweat Cheat]

Professional societies have a responsibility to consider action in accordance with their bylaws including expulsion for self-plagiarism and other publishing machination. They must make every effort to ensure a fair and just process both for those accused of misconduct and those who raise scientific misconduct issues. Anything less prejudices people who maintain an ethic. Allegations not made in good faith, whether in the area of publishing or on promotion issues, require the most rigorous censure by societies and the institutions themselves.

Sherk’s published papers will receive rigorous peer-review by someone familiar with the discipline to conclude the these implications. Meanwhile, she must cooperate with people who request information. Unlike people in private practice, she receives tax-payer funding and grant money as a public servant and must act with openness and integrity. She has exhibited neither of those traits.

Legal Ramifications

Professors (as state employees) cannot call on the university for legal representation in matters relating to criminal fraud or negligence so they maintain a wall of silence (collegiality). Sherk and McGovern committed fraud and acted in a criminally negligent way. They conspired to commit a felony by supporting the unlawful activity of their peers and university administrators.

They acted as accessories before and after the fact by acquiescing to criminal behavior. The university has since promoted them to professor and they have obtained lucrative grants and substantial salary increases. Clark, Hendrickson, and Sherk failed to provide copies of public records that relate to those grants and Sherk’s tenure and promotion within the time allowed under the Washington public disclosure act. [Silent Withholding]

Legal arguments remain the concern of lawyers although the criteria for legal argument and forensic reporting employ similar rhetorical devices. The Sherk example only touches upon one aspect of the crimes allegedly committed. Most of them have committed misprision by obstructing justice and conspiring to defraud.

Misprision means concealing a felony committed by another as an accessory before or after the fact. Primarily, persons with full knowledge who deliberately conceal facts relating to crimes committed by others and fail to notify authorities become guilty of misprision.²²

Criminal conspiracy means agreeing to engage with one or more persons in conduct that causes obstruction of justice. It includes impeding or obstructing those who seek justice in a court or other formal proceeding and acts by one or more persons who prevent, or attempt to prevent, the execution of lawful process.²³

Ten years of investigation have revealed many more instances where UW has allegedly paid-off its adversaries, not the least the public records officer originally concerned with silently withholding public records relating to the issues described here.

Emily S. Hill evidently baulked at breaking laws for political expedience. She tried to act ethically and lost her job as a consequence. She employed a Seattle law firm and UW quietly settled out of court. The person who replaced her, Eliza A. Saunders [$61,188.00], has silently withheld hundreds of public records since Hill left UW employ and continues to do so. [Silent Withholding]

Conclusion

If faculty members maintain a conspiracy of silence about unlawful acts then eventually the reputation of the whole University of Washington suffers. Unfortunately, the public identifies the innocent with the guilty when details of corruption eventually surface. Ethical faculty members often ask themselves whether they should overlook blatant abuse of office by university officials to give the appearance of justice or reveal what they know to insure due process and freedom of expression. I have decided to reveal what I know in an attempt to obtain due process.

Christine O. Gregoire, formerly Attorney General, State of Washington, now governor has ignored multiple kangaroo courts that have taken place on campus and has tacitly condoned the involvement of her own staff in unlawful activities. Furthermore, she has neither responded to certified letters nor investigated the complaints filed with her several years ago. [Criminal Conspiracy]

Gaining promotion by sitting on committees that destroy colleagues and denying due process of law has become a common practice. Rewarding tenure track professors, or those bucking for promotion, for sitting on politically motivated committees defines as malfeasance.

Self-governing privileges granted by legislatures allow administrators to misuse lawful procedures for political purposes. The people who sit on these kangaroo courts can do nothing but follow the dictates of administrators preferring charges. If the committee holds a fair hearing that exonerates the target then committee members do not receive their reward.

The incentive to progress as a professor requires pandering to those with power. Appointment to committees usually rests with department chairs who make the arrangements. They base their appointments upon a need for promotion credits not on due process of law or knowledge of the particular problem under consideration. Virtually no appeal exists because the same administrators that bring false charges also make appellate decisions.

Many universities changed the rules that required terminal degrees for tenure-track professors in the 1980s to require them to earn a PhD despite possessing equivalent degrees. They conveniently ignored the grandfather process; hence the reason for earning a PhD belatedly.

The university has evidently now started an organized campaign of telephone harassment to pursue me for recovery of monies that it says I owe for tuition loans. I intend to refer all debt collectors and ambulance chasers to President Emmert’s office. He ranks as the ultimately responsible party. Niccolls will identity completely with the claimants. With them she can speak a common language - money. They have absolute unethical affinity.

The people named in this article receive more than three million dollars each year in taxpayer-funded salaries, grants, and other emoluments. They all rank as public servants held to a legal code. Apart from President Emmert, I have collected evidence that proves each of them has committed serious crimes and that they continue to cover up for each other.

Will President Emmert insure justice and mitigate the damage that his administrators have caused or will he continue the policy of his predecessor and cover up their crimes - a criminal offense in itself?

The two lily-livered wretches on my PhD committee (Haselkorn and Winn) hold the answer to any questions that Emmert may have. They have had several months notice to do something about the problems. Instead of acting they continue to hide. However, they have almost run out of hiding places. [Winn]

Has Olswang bought their silence?

Academic corruption ranks worse than prostitution in the scheme of academic life. The latter may endanger the morals of the individual but the former invariably endangers the morals of the entire community.²⁴

[Nmesis]

*Salary annualized to allow comparison.

The Big Lie
by
Lee L Huntsman

© Copyright 2005 by Paul Trummel
All Rights Reserved: 13 Mar 05/08:47 GMT
Edition: #603-13-00/08-0208-14:29
Feedback: Webspinner@ContraCabal.org