“Florida Atlantic University Threatens to End Tenure”

Under TracyvFAU the Kafkaesque Policy Faculty Once Protested is Now Federal Law

[Editor’s Note: This Memory Hole Blog post of September 19, 2015 was published shortly before Florida Atlantic University fired Professor James Tracy because he did not obtain university approval for his constitutionally-protected speech. The post highlights the September 4, 2015 FAU Faculty Senate meeting where another raucous exchange ensued as several professors, including two constitutional law experts, lectured top administrators (three of whom were initially named as individual defendants in TracyvFAU) on their unlawful use of a confusing “Outside Activities Policy” that to this day almost no faculty understand. In TracyvFAU the court quite literally pulled out every stop to protect FAU by preventing the jury from seeing a transcript of the September 4 Faculty Senate meeting. 

The abusive actions included browbeating certain professors with “nasty letters” and threatening formal discipline for extracurricular speech of that university officials deemed undesirable. Less than two months later school officials used the same policy as a pretext to terminate Tracy’s tenured employment. The questionable post-tenure review policy was revised with faculty input; the ambiguous and controversial “Outside Activities Policy” is now federal law. (The piece also appeared at Global Research and the American Association of University Professors Academe Blog.)] 


James F. Tracy
September 19, 2015

“If you can take tenure away, and this document says that you can, essentially this faculty does not have tenure anymore. There is not another university that has anything close to [this].” – FAU professor, September 4, 2015

“I think there’s instances at this university where some faculty should no longer be working at this university [sic].” – FAU Provost Gary Perry, September 4, 2015

A policy promoted by Florida Atlantic University administrators is proving controversial among faculty at the South Florida college. The proposed set of rules, “Post-Tenure/Sustained-Performance Evaluation,” was recently authored by a subcommittee of senior professors, administrators and former administrators under the auspices of the University’s Faculty Senate.

Shortly thereafter, however, the document went through a process of heavy revision overseen by FAU Provost Gary Perry and college deans who want to grant themselves the ability to potentially terminate any tenured faculty member.

At first glance the policy appears to resemble similar post tenure review documents in effect at universities across Florida and the United States, proposing a peer review of tenured faculty members’ teaching, research, and service at periodic intervals after the professor has received tenure. Unlike others policies, however, at FAU the outcome of a “poor” post tenure evaluation can lead to termination of a tenured faculty member for “incompetence.”

What makes FAU’s proposed policy different is that even if a faculty peer review is positive, college deans and the provost are seeking the power to overturn the post tenure committee’s decision with impunity, thereby nullifying the peer review so central to the professoriate’s autonomy over its profession and setting in motion a process that can lead to stripping a faculty member of their tenure protections en route to termination.

The policy can potentially be used to target specific tenured faculty members the University’s Board of Trustees and/or administration cannot presently fire due to protection afforded by tenure.

Provost Perry is also attempting to insert a “dismissal clause” into the post-tenure review document, further streamlining an already draconian anti-tenure policy. At a recent meeting on September 4 Perry informed faculty that the policy would indeed be used to fire certain faculty he deemed undesirable.

Read the rest of this entry

Advertisements

“The US Government Killed MLK Jr.”

WIlliam F. Pepper Esq.

Image Credit: Wikipedia

Editor’s Note: The United States is especially fond of dedicating monuments, boulevards, even airports to the elected leaders and public officials its lettered agencies have murdered. Dr. Pepper’s research and legal efforts that resulted in the 1999 King v. Jowers verdict elaborated on in the video below left no doubt that the US government was directly involved in the April 4, 1968 assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. As Coretta Scott King remarked, “The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that … the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband.”

The indisputable facts brought to light in the case were blacked out entirely by US corporate media. Nor are they a topic of discussion in American college classrooms (let alone grade school), furthering the country’s gross inability to reflect on and come to terms with its complex history. We further wonder when the likes of “Black Lives Matter” will be putting in a kick on how the public has been propagandized on how the most significant black figure of the past half century was killed. 

In this January 17, 2012 lecture attorney William Pepper details the responsibility of the US government for the assassination of Martin Luther King after more than 30 years’ investigation. As he explains here, he won a jury verdict against the US government for that assassination in a civil suit he brought for Coretta Scott King, widow of MLK Jr. Although there were two snipers and their spotters in place, employed by the US, a third shooter in bushes, a hired off-duty Memphis policeman fired the fatal shot. Introduced by Episcopal Priest Rev. Frank Morales. Camera: Joe Friendly.


William Francis Pepper is the author of Orders to Kill: The Truth Behind the Murder of Martin Luther King (1995), An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King (2003), and The Plot to Kill King: The Truth Behind the Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. (2017). Dr. Pepper is a barrister in the United Kingdom and admitted to the bar in numerous jurisdictions in the United States of America. His primary work is international commercial law. He has represented governments in the Middle East, Africa, South America, and Asia. Today, Pepper represents Sirhan Sirhan, the gunman convicted in the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy in June 1968.

Bill Pepper was a friend of Martin Luther King in the last year of his life. Some years after King’s death, Bill Pepper went on to represent James Earl Ray in his guilty plea, and subsequent conviction. Pepper believes that Ray was framed by the federal government and that King was killed by a conspiracy that involved the FBI, the CIA, the military, the Memphis police and organized crime figures from New Orleans and Memphis. He later represented James Earl Ray in a televised mock trial in an attempt to get Ray the trial that he never had.

He then represented the King family in a wrongful death civil trial, King family vs. Loyd Jowers and “other unknown co-conspirators.” During a trial that lasted four weeks Bill produced over seventy witnesses. Jowers, testifying by deposition, stated that James Earl Ray was a scapegoat, and not involved in the assassination. Jowers testified that Memphis police officer Earl Clark fired the fatal shots. On December 8, 1999, the Memphis jury found Jowers responsible and found that the assassination plot included also “governmental agencies.” The jury took less than an hour to find in favor of the King family for the requested sum of $1.00

William Pepper is heavily involved in Human Rights Law, for a time convening the International Human Rights Seminar at Oxford University, during which time individuals such as Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, accepted invitations to address the seminar. He lives in the US currently -not primarily- but travels frequently to England.

The Strange Fate of Those Who Saw JFK Shot

By William Penn Jones Jr. and True Publica
Via Global Research
(January 13, 2018)

William Penn Jones Jr. was an American journalist, the editor of the Midlothian Mirror and author. He was also one of the earliest John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists. Jones attended the University of Texas at Austin and was a classmate of Henry Wade and John Connally. Wade later become the District Attorney in Dallas while Connolly would later become the 39th Governor of Texas. Both men were figures in the assassination of JFK.

In 1946, Jones purchased the Midlothian Mirror for $4,000; he eventually sold the newspaper in 1974. In 1963, Penn received the Elijah Lovejoy Award for Courage in Journalism.

Jones was also known for being an early critic of the Warren Commission‘s report on the assassination of JFK. In 1967, he self-published Forgive My Grief, a four-volume work on the assassination of President Kennedy. In the 1980s, Jones co-edited The Continuing Inquiry newsletter with Gary Mack of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza.

On January 25, 1998, Jones died of Alzheimer’s disease in a Alvarado, Texas nursing home at the age of 83.

In January 1983 Rebel Magazine published an article written by Jones, which is republished in full, with no editing below (except images). The JFK assassination was one of the biggest events to have ever hit America and Jones assumes that the reader of the time would have known quite a bit about it. This article makes for fascinating reading whether you believe the official state narrative or alternative theories. Last October, Statista concluded from surveys that 61 percent of Americans believe JFK was not killed by Oswald alone and that others were involved.


Over 100 murders, suicides, mysterious deaths – the strange fate of those who saw Kennedy shot.

By Penn Jones Jr.

Rebel Magazine, 1983

Shortly after dark on Sunday night November 24, 1963, after Ruby had killed Lee Harvey Oswald, a meeting took place in Jack Ruby’s apartment in Oak Cliff, a suburb of Dallas, Texas. Five persons were present. George Senator and Attorney Tom Howard were present and having a drink in the apartment when two newsmen arrived. The newsmen were Bill Hunter of the Long Beach California Press Telegram, and Jim Koethe of the Dallas Times Herald. Attorney C.A. Droby of Dallas arranged the meeting for the two newsmen. Jim Martin, a close friend of George Senator’s, was also present at the apartment meeting.

This writer asked Martin if he thought it was unusual for Senator to forget the meeting while testifying in Washington on April 22, 1964, since Bill Hunter, who was a newsman present at the meeting, was shot to death that very night. Martin grinned and said: “Oh, you’re looking for a conspiracy.”
I nodded yes and he grinned and said, “You will never find it.”
I asked soberly, “Never find it, or not there?”
He added soberly, “Not there.”

Bill Hunter, a native of Dallas and an award winning newsman in Long Beach, was on duty and reading a book in the police station called “Public Safety Building.” Two policemen going off duty came into the press room, and one policeman shot Hunter through the heart at a range officially ruled to be “no more than three feet.” The policeman said he dropped his gun, and it fired as he picked it up, but the angle of the bullet caused him to change his story. He finally said he was playing a game of quick draw with his fellow officer. The other officer testified he had his back turned when the shooting took place.

Hunter, who covered the assassination for his paper, the Long Beach Press Telegram, had written:

“Within minutes of Ruby’s execution of Oswald, before the eyes of millions watching television, at least two Dallas attorneys appeared to talk with him.”

Hunter was quoting Tom Howard who died of a heart attack in Dallas a few months after Hunter’s own death. Lawyer Tom Howard was observed acting strangely to his friends two days before his death. Howard was taken to the hospital by a “friend” according to the newspapers. No autopsy was performed.

Read the rest of this entry

Florida Officials Arrested in Public Records Scandal

Editor’s Note: Good to see how once in a blue moon Florida public servants are taken to task and criminally charged for spurning public records requests under Florida Statutes Chapter 119. Our experience with State of Florida officials is their tendency toward foot-dragging and outward contempt when faced with lawful document inspection/production requests that may reveal malfeasance and abuse of their public service mission. 

Emily Bohatch
TCPalm
(January 4, 2018)

MARTIN COUNTY — Martin County Commissioner Sarah Heard and former Commissioner Anne Scott turned themselves in to the Martin County Jail on Thursday as they face new charges of public records violations, a Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman said.

Martin County Commissioner Sarah Heard was booked late this afternoon (Martin County Sheriff’s Office photo)

Heard and Scott had a warrant for their arrests detailing charges of two counts of public records law violations each, spokeswoman Christine Christophek said.

In late November, Heard and Scott were charged the first time on public records-related charges. Scott faced criminal misdemeanor charges for failure to allow inspection of public records, and was arrested.

Former Martin County Commissioner Anne Scott, seen in July 2016 in Washington D.C., was arrested Thursday, Jan. 4, 2018, on new public records violation charges. (Photo: JARRAD HENDERSON/USA TODAY)

A knowing violation of public records law by an elected official is a first-degree misdemeanor, according to state law. It also can be grounds for removal from office or impeachment, the law says.

More…

Book Em! Martin County Commissioner Sara Heard Arrested in Public Records Scandal

Jose Lambiet
(January 4, 2018)

STUART — Ever so quietly, Martin County Commissioner Sarah Heard was indicted by a grand jury this afternoon and surrendered to the county jail to be booked on two misdemeanor charges in connection with a public records scandal that already saw another sitting commissioner, Ed Fielding, arrested in November.

It’s the first time in the county’s 93-year history that two sitting commissioners, who as of today appear to have no intention of resigning, are indicted by a grand jury and arrested.

Heard was charged with two misdemeanor violations of public records laws. She faces up to a year in prison per count.

In other developments, former Commissioner Anne Scott, who was arrested with Fielding in November, surrendered again at the jail today and was re-arrested on two extra counts of failing to produce public records.

More…

 

Russiagate Turns On Its Originators

Paul Craig Roberts
Institute for Political Economy

The orchestration “Russiagate” proves that the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI are so corrupt and unaccountable that they comprise the greatest threat to the American people in the entire history of America.

Russiagate originated in a conspiracy between the military/security complex, the Clinton-controlled Democratic National Committee, and the liberal/progressive/left. The goal of the military/security complex is to protect its out-sized budget and power by preventing President Trump from normalizing relations with Russia. Hillary and the DNC want to explain away their election loss by blaming a Trump/Putin conspiracy to steal the election. The liberal/progressive/left want Trump driven from office.

As the presstitutes are aligned with the military/security complex, Hillary and the DNC, and the liberal/progressive/left, the Russiagate orchestration is a powerful conspiracy against the president of the United States and the “deplorables” who elected him. Nevertheless, the Russiagate Conspiracy has fallen apart and has now been turned against its originators.

Despite the determination of the CIA and FBI to get Trump, these powerful and unaccountable police state agencies have been unable to present any evidence of the Trump/Putin conspiracy against Hillary. As William Binney, the former high level National Security Agency official who devised the spy program has stated, if there was any evidence of a Trump/Putin conspiracy to steal the US presidential election, the NSA would most certainly have it.

Read the rest of this entry

Major Media Blackout: The Startling Emergence of Epidemic Autism in the New China

Autism and Western Vaccines see Parallel Rise in China ​​​​​​​

F. William Engdahl
(August 30, 2014)

vaccinationThe escalating scandal around the alleged deliberate fraud by the US Government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to drastically alter a major study of the possible link between MMP vaccines (Measles, Mumps, Pertussis) in children vaccinated under three years age, and incidence of autism is throwing light on one of the most criminal strategies of Western pharmaceutical vaccine makers. Now it comes to light that a major epidemic spread of cases of autism in China arose directly parallel to China’s opening up to the Western drug-makers and to WTO trade rules some twenty years ago.

In the mid-1980’s western drug makers introduced multiple combined vaccines and steadily lowered the recommended age at which children should receive the repeated vaccinations. They were backed by what are now provably corrupt official agencies in the US including the CDC. Organizations of US pediatricians, which received millions of dollars in favors from the same drug makers, joined the bandwagon for early and massive infant vaccination. Unknowing parents were in effect terrorized into allowing the vaccination surge in fear of being responsible for horrible disease or damage to their children were they to refuse.

China’s new ‘Opium War’: Vaccines

By the early 1990’s, as the Peoples’ Republic of China continued its unprecedented opening to all things Western, the Government allowed Western drug makers to enter China in a major way.
Read the rest of this entry

Watch Your Words, Professor

The Case of Edward A. Ross

Editor’s Note: University professors in the United States today seldom engage in public speech that may even remotely threaten their employment. This is partly due to the fact that close to three-quarters of teaching faculty are non-tenured contract workers, and thus readily recognize their lack of tenure protections. Yet the many who have earned tenure regard it as more of a guaranteed sinecure than a guard against potential administrative retaliation for personal beliefs and/or public statements. 

In fact, the institution of tenure in American higher education is largely rooted in the controversy surrounding Stanford University’s dismissal of Professor Edward A. Ross in 1900 for his public speech. Ross was a highly-regarded economist, sociologist, and even an early mass media critic. Jane Stanford, widow of railroad magnate and university founder Leland Stanford, was disturbed by Professor Ross’ political views, evident in the popular faculty member’s enthusiastic public support of the Populist Party’s “free silver” platform of the 1890s, and his subsequent condemnation of “Chinese cheap labor.” Following these remarks Ms. Stanford successfully pressured university president David Starr Jordan to terminate Ross’ employment. 

The retaliatory firing of Ross became known as the “Ross case” and is historically recognized as a principal motivating factor in Professors John Dewey and Arthur O. Lovejoy’s founding of the American Association of University Professors that advocated for tenure across the US higher ed landscape.

As the following article from Stanford’s alumni publication (somewhat tepidly) chronicles,

At the time of her death in 1905, Mrs. Stanford was still associated with the Ross Affair. An obituary in the New York Times called it “the only serious cloud that ever lowered over Stanford University.”

By Brian Eule
Stanford
(January/February 2015)

In 1900, Jane Stanford forced out a respected faculty member. Was he a martyr to academic freedom or a racist gadfly who deserved what he got?

Department of Special Collections and University Archives (right); Image D-07548 Courtesy of the Royal BC Museum, BC Archives

ON A TUESDAY AFTERNOON in November 1900, Edward Alsworth Ross gathered several student reporters in his campus office. Ross, 33 years old and a Stanford economics professor of seven years, had joined the university just two years after its opening. He was a captivating sight, 6-foot-5 and nattily dressed in a suit that favored his athletic physique.

Ross was popular with students and esteemed in his field. David Starr Jordan, the university’s first president, had recruited him not once but twice. Plucked from Jordan’s former home at Cornell, Ross was emerging as a scholarly star. Now, his time at Stanford was coming to an abrupt end.

Ross held a lengthy written statement he had prepared for the San Francisco newspapers. He handed it to the students.

“Well, boys,” he said, “I’m fired.”

ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN YEARS LATER, the reasons for Ross’s departure remain in dispute. The matter was precipitated by a series of public pronouncements Ross had made on political matters between 1896 and 1900, a practice that put him at odds with university co-founder Jane Stanford. Was he forced out because of his outspoken opinions or because he broke rules prohibiting partisan advocacy? What is not in dispute is that Mrs. Stanford insisted that Ross be sacked despite the vigorous objections of Jordan, who finally relented.

Ross’s dismissal drove a wedge between Stanford faculty and the administration and resulted in a spate of resignations by other professors. More broadly, it galvanized efforts to codify protection of academic freedom and indirectly led to the establishment of tenure. As it turned out, that hastily arranged press conference in Ross’s office was a seminal moment in the history of higher education.

LONG BEFORE HIS NAME became synonymous with academic freedom controversies, Edward Ross was an enigmatic figure. Born to a farmer and a schoolteacher in Illinois, and orphaned at age 10, he was taken in by neighbors on a nearby Iowa farm. His new family viewed him as a prodigy, praising him so extravagantly that some boys in the area thought him pampered.

More…

“Conspiracy Theorists” (Critical Thinkers) Don’t Deserve Free Speech

Federal Court in TracyvFAU Confirms: Government Employers May Lawfully Censor Workers’ Protected Speech, “Outside Activities”

Revisiting “Why James Tracy, FAU’s Conspiracy Theorist, Should Resign”

On October 31, 2017 The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled (rejoinder here) that Florida Atlantic University’s firing of a tenured professor was lawful, and moreover, that FAU could discipline or terminate any employee who fails to disclose their political speech, or any other “outside activity” administrators deem objectionable. The article below was posted at MemoryHoleBlog on May 15, 2013 as a response to an opinion piece penned by three FAU faculty administrators and published simultaneously by South Florida’s major newspapers, the Palm Beach Post and Sun-Sentinel. The FAU middle managers were apparently piqued by Tracy’s public commentary concerning the April 15 Boston Marathon “bombing” event. This marked one of several initial attempts to attack and suppress Tracy’s personal blogging.

Upon the article’s publication unknown parties with access to several dozen faculty mailboxes of Professor Tracy’s FAU colleagues distributed copies of the slanderous article. Tracy’s repeated pleas with FAU administrators to investigate the incident on the grounds of potential retaliatory harassment were left unacknowledged. Subsequent documentation obtained under Florida’s Sunshine Law suggests that FAU administrators were aware of and at least condoned the article’s broad dissemination.

The post observes how in the age of “homeland security” and the so-called “war on terror,” citizen whistleblowers alongside those who otherwise question complex events and their sometimes incredible narratives are forcefully deprived of the same free speech rights enjoyed by the general citizenry. From the country’s founding to today’s phony terror war, every era has its political scapegoats. As the court’s clear bias in the TracyvFAU case suggests, those inquiring on government misdeeds may be readily deprived of both their livelihoods and civil liberties, while today’s “Red Coats” are granted million dollar, taxpayer-funded legal representation and walk free.  

In a recent statement to local newspapers I have been publicly accused by colleagues of being a “conspiracy theorist.” The statement’s authors are asking that I resign my university post because my extracurricular commentary is deemed offensive and allegedly interferes with my ability to properly assess and articulate complex ideas in a scholarly manner.

In addition to blithely accepting official narratives they have not seriously interrogated, these would-be thoughtful and meticulous academics carelessly adopt and wield the “conspiracy theorist” pejorative without deeper consideration of its etymological meaning and cultural significance. In this way they awkwardly violate the exact professional code and etiquette to which they claim an academic should adhere while contradictorily upholding a popular perspective they might otherwise–following their own criteria–see fit to reject.[1]

Disparaging labels draw on and reflect the cultural and political beliefs of the given historical era. They may be used as disciplinary devices that at once legitimate certain worldviews and their attendant assumptions while designating others as dangerous and verboten. As the histories of many religions and political regimes suggest, concerted and vocal alarm directed toward unorthodox thought has typically been the focus of the state-sanctioned intellectual, reflecting the prevailing interests and beliefs of the given time.

Read the rest of this entry

Facebook Says It Is Deleting Accounts at the Direction of the U.S. and Israeli Governments

Editor’s Note: Alongside the feigned pandemonium over “fake news” by The Washington Post and its cadres, and overt censorship of citizen journalism by Google and YouTube, this is yet another example of a long-running war on free speech and political dissent, in this instance being brought to bear by an entire nation state and what is essentially the world’s single corporate social media behemoth.  

Glenn Greenwald
The Intercept

IN SEPTEMBER OF last year, we noted that Facebook representatives were meeting with the Israeli government to determine which Facebook accounts of Palestinians should be deleted on the ground that they constituted “incitement.” The meetings — called for and presided over by one of the most extremist and authoritarian Israeli officials, pro-settlement Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked — came after Israel threatened Facebook that its failure to voluntarily comply with Israeli deletion orders would result in the enactment of laws requiring Facebook to do so, upon pain of being severely fined or even blocked in the country.

(From PressTV, Nov. 26, 2014)

The predictable results of those meetings are now clear and well-documented. Ever since, Facebook has been on a censorship rampage against Palestinian activists who protest the decades-long, illegal Israeli occupation, all directed and determined by Israeli officials. Indeed, Israeli officials have been publicly boasting about how obedient Facebook is when it comes to Israeli censorship orders:

Shortly after news broke earlier this month of the agreement between the Israeli government and Facebook, Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked said Tel Aviv had submitted 158 requests to the social media giant over the previous four months asking it to remove content it deemed “incitement.” She said Facebook had granted 95 percent of the requests.

She’s right. The submission to Israeli dictates is hard to overstate: As the New York Times put it in December of last year, “Israeli security agencies monitor Facebook and send the company posts they consider incitement. Facebook has responded by removing most of them.”

What makes this censorship particularly consequential is that “96 percent of Palestinians said their primary use of Facebook was for following news.” That means that Israeli officials have virtually unfettered control over a key communications forum of Palestinians.

More…

Smith-Mundt “Modernization” Act and False Flag Terror

Editor’s Note: Since passage of the Smith-Mundt “Modernization” Act in 2012 there has been an unmistakable increase in the number of suspicious mass mediated “terrorist” events in the US and EU. The coverage and discourse surrounding these incidents have directly paralleled heightened police state measures and calls for stricter gun control laws.

Revising Smith-Mundt effectively legalizes federal government to overtly target the American people with propaganda, and is yet another piece of legislation that was secretly passed within a much more massive array of laws–in this instance the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act–and enacted with virtually zero public debate. In light of this the following discussion directs the citizen-reader to various revealing documents well worth our collective attention.


DarkMath
Voat.co

The Smith-Mundt “Modernization” Act of 2012 legalized Domestic Propaganda. It was passed by Obama so the Left could better control the narrative because sending paid shills into Internet chat rooms wasn’t working.

Smith-Mundt is something right out of Nazi Germany. It employs a propaganda technique Joseph Goebbels refined from the English called “The Big Lie” which boils down to this:

“If you make a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually believe it.”

I’ve been called “paranoid” for concluding the US Gov is producing copious amounts of domestic propaganda to influence public opinion. Other paranoiacs include:

George Webb

Naomi Wolf

Michael Hastings

Business Insider

Here is a quick review of FEMA mass casualty events passed off as real in the MSM via Smith-Mundt. For more details see events below listed by date most recent being the first.

Read the rest of this entry

%d bloggers like this: