Contra Cabal 610-08-01 - Kangaroo Court - S. Michael Halloran and Gary Judd

Kangaroo Court

S. Michael Halloran and Gary Judd

Case studies address repugnant moral and ethical behavior experienced in US universities
during many years as a corporate CEO and professor.


	Contra Cabal Foundation Contra Cabal web sites have achieved an extraordinary readership. If Paul Trummel dies before he completes his work, then trustees have authority to continue publication as an educational project through the newly formed Contra Cabal Foundation, London which will own all publication rights. The Foundation will publish Contra Cabal in perpetuity in the way that Sonia Orwell posthumously published the collected works of George Orwell. Foundation trustees and directors (professional people, lawyers, and academicians in UK and US connected directly and indirectly with the International Federation of Journalists) will supervise editorial and design functions using young investigative reporters and graphic designers who wish to further their education in journalism. They will receive trade union freelance rates of payment for their work. The Foundation will respect former trustee the late William D Winn's last admonition "Go get 'em!" by continuing to report academic malfeasance and to expose morally repugnant academicians and public officials. Readers should consider the articles and case studies as a work in progress. More information about academic or government fraud and deceit frequently surfaces after victims or their associates read Contra Cabal. That information becomes part of a relevant case study after verification and validation. Students and current faculty members write letters to the editor on politically sensitive issues. Some correspondents request name withholding to avoid retaliation. Contra Cabal electronic magazine contains expose and satire. Probably one of the first to appear on the web, it has now published since 1992. The hits/month range between 100,000 and 150,000 with more than 1.5 million hits by about 60,000 unique visitors during the past twelve months. The "New Releases" menu lists new, updated, or revised articles on the four Contra Cabal sites. [Site Navigation Plan] [Letters to the Editor]

Case Study

Halloran

Judd

S. Michael Halloran, former Chair H&SS/LL&C, recommended to Gary Judd, former Graduate Dean, that he block the author's third year PhD registration at RPI claiming lack of qualifications for doctoral work. Judd ignored the fact that two years earlier Halloran and his cabal had approved those same credentials and the H&SS dean had granted a faculty position to teach at graduate level. Nothing had changed except that the author had completed most of his doctoral work with an `A' grade.

Halloran had accepted European academic equivalencies as a basis for a contract for doctoral study in 1985. He knew that a string of educational institutions had reviewed those credentials and accepted them for employment as a professor and that the president of Fitchburg State College had certified them. Halloran had no legitimate reason to question them later; however, he challenged them anyway in an attempt to cover up alleged program fraud by the department.

Halloran convened a secret “disciplinary faculty committee meeting” and denied the author an opportunity to attend or to present a written defense. With this type of meeting, the accused neither knows the names of accusers nor the nature of the charges made against him. He certainly does not receive a copy of the findings. With malice, the practice ranks as criminal because it defrauds the victim by denying services for which he has contracted and paid for in advance.

Star Chamber proceedings were used to enforce royal prerogative in the seventeenth century. Universities now operate "risk management" policies in a similar way. They deny due process of law by using kangaroo courts under the politically correct title of “disciplinary faculty committee meeting”. The term “kangaroo court” describes a quasi-legal proceeding characterized by dishonesty or incompetence set up in violation of established law to either delay or deny justice. Participants assume the roles of prosecution, judge, and jury in a kafkaesque manner.

To cover their tracks when the author challenged them about his arbitrary expulsion from the university, Judd and Halloran supplied an obscure accrediting agency with inaccurate and incomplete information, thereby insuring a negative and flawed report to support their illegal act.

Exasperated, the author engaged an Albany, NY law firm. The lawyer insisted upon reevaluation of credentials with an agency recognized by US Department of Education and International Education Research Foundation filed a positive report.

The new evaluation tallied with what the author had originally represented in his application for entry into the doctoral program more than two years earlier. Judd capitulated by reinstating PhD registration.

In the effort to register for continuing PhD study the author incurred $6,000 in legal fees and lost a semester of PhD research while he reestablished his credentials. He also lost his computer databases. Judd and Halloran neither mitigated the damage nor provided a reason for their actions.

Nothing Succeeds like Excess

Academic freedom, an absolute right not an abstract philosophy, should not subserve economic considerations.

Moreover, information technology remains a right not a privilege despite technocratic claims to the contrary.

Legislative and judicial decisions have determined the right of individuals to distribute information freely and the Bill of Rights documents the protection individuals should expect from the state.

However, laws do not provide much protection when despotic administrators interfere with computer resources because they disagree with the content of messages: a disagreement probably based upon disclosure of their own malfeasance.

They fear dissent and have an aversion to controversy. Their addiction to political correctness frequently causes them to invoke censorship of Internet activities.

They not only empower their systems administrators to handle frivolous email complaints by arbitrarily removing computer access but also allow them to censor incoming mail - an outrageous invasion of personal privacy.

They act upon an irrational expectation that certain categories of email may contain something that Big Mama would not wish others to read then arbitrarily reject it.

Interference with email transmission not specifically proscribed by federal law classifies as a federal offense which Rensselaer and University of Washington officials commit with impunity.