Peter N. Kirstein

I have been touring the Pacific Northwest and the Canadian province of British Columbia. I happened to be in Seattle on Sunday, June 28th, the day of Gay Pride parades commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall gay-bar resistance in Manhattan. It launched, so they say, the gay liberation movement. While some historians actually believe the resistance began at a gay sit-in at Dewey’s Restaurant in Philadelphia and NOT Stonewall, history has a way of creating “facts” which may be more or less true. I think the heroes of Dewey, whose names are buried in history, should be lauded for the non-violent actions of that event. Stonewall was violent but certainly liberationist in effect.

I was walking with my backpack on the way to Cafe Presse on Capitol Hill in Seattle when I saw the preparatory staging of the Pride parade. It had not started but I could see a marching band rehearsing, corporate sponsored logos such as Orbitz Gay travel floats and Microsoft-sponsored platforms. Anyway, I walked up a steep hill to the Cafe, then north on 14th Avenue to Volunteer Park to see the Conservatory and the Water Tower view of the sparkling city. As I headed back to my hotel down Pine Street, I could see the Space Needle again. I had seen it from a ship traversing Puget Sound on the west and through the “Black Sun” sculpture of Isamu Noguchi which is right in front of the Seattle Asian Art Museum in Volunteer Park. It looks more like a doughnut but according to the New York Times inspired Soundgarden’s grunge anthem “Black Hole Sun.”

http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:pbZ791SOdAf_yM:http://farm4.static.flickr.com

Anyway on my downhill return to the waterfront, I got to Union and the Pride Parade was still in full swing some two hours after my initial pre-parade encounter. I had never witnessed a gay-pride parade before or any parade since my parents would take me to a July 4th event every year on Lindell Blvd. in St Louis. I was able to catch a space between floats and dash across 4th Avenue but decided to stop and watch the extravaganza.

The parade was mobbed. I noticed a float with: “Atheists believe in you” and smiled, applauded and admired the touch. Then I saw some HIV/AIDS sponsors as they passed out written information. Signs declaring “Use a condom” were passing me as I stood on the corner as a policeperson tried to get the crowd back onto the sidewalk. Then the United Church of Christ displayed its solidarity. Folks were screaming with joy and clapping as display after display rolled by. Yes there were the narcissistic bare-chested-only-underpants wearing men on a float and one or two drag queens but most of the parade thematics were quite educational and progressive in substance. “Remember Stonewall.” “Marriage should be Equal.” “Our time has come.”  “Don’t Discriminate by Gender” etc.

I did not ask spectators what their orientation was but I was struck at the large numbers and wondered, “Were they all gay?” Probably not since I am straight and folks like a good parade. A great parade actually in a very progressive city. The Seattle Times on its front-page covered the event and also listed Pride events for the weekend.  I did not see President Barack Obama in the parade or Hillary Clinton but I suppose Barack was getting ready for his chat in the White House on Monday with gay and lesbian organisational leaders and Hillary was probably just being Hillary. Wondering if those “Hard working Americans. White Americans” which was her racist mantra during the primaries in 2008 would ever be able to vote for her again for president. I hope not as the wife of Mr Racist (remember the South Carolina primary remarks?)  D.O.M.A. revels in her splendour.

That evening I went out for dinner to Wild Ginger to get some clams and scallops and the parade was over and the area was pretty empty.  Later as I was getting read for bed, I thought well the police this time were protecting spectators and Pride participants, watching to preserve order and basically just doing their job. Not hassling, or breaking up folks enjoying what was then one of the few public spaces where homosexuals could socialise: gay bars. So some manifestations of overt persecution have ended as evidenced with the reversal of the sodomy is a crime Bowers v Hardwick (1986) case with Lawrence v Texas case in 2003. A little stare decisis can be dangerous and oppressive. I am glad it was eviscerated in this instance.

One of the reasons I used “Coming Out Straight” as part of the subject title was up until a few years ago I was afraid to discuss the Gay Liberation struggle in my history classes. It was like well they may think I am gay or something as if that would be so bad. In my syllabus I first stated I was straight. Then I removed that but when distributing a handout outline, I indicated  I did not participate in the gay lifestyle. This year I hope to treat it more as a normal topic for a history survey course like women’s or African-American history. Historians have generally avoided the gay and lesbian topic for reasons which may be either fear of misidentification or underestimating its importance in the tapestry of American history.

Coming out straight may be necessary in achieving a comfort level in discussing the topic of homosexuality for some–especially those teaching at a conservative (at least by my standards to be sure), Catholic university. Yet avoiding the topic ignores a significant contemporary and historic phenomenon of  the struggle for human rights and equal justice. One’s orientation is irrelevant in terms of character and ability and citizenship. The more open gays and straights are about the persecution of gays and lesbians and transgender and bisexuals then the veil of silence will be lifted further and a just society more comprehensively advanced.

SERE stands for Survival Evasion Resistance Escape. All departments of the imperialist forces train with this interrogation nonsense including the navy at Naval Air Station Brunswick, Maine where my interlocutor is stationed. These folks “practice” torture, barbaric tactics of cruelty and softening, sleep deprivation, physical abuse, walling, temperature alteration and other cruel and inhumane tactics forbidden under international and even US law. Devised in the 1950s due to torture against Americans in Korea, SERE’s reverse-engineered torture so Americans could learn it as practitioners or as the party line says survive it. I am certain that at one time they also practiced waterboarding but have no evidence that is occurring now even as part of their training. The US is the world’s leading rogue state and its most violent threat to international peace and security. I find it ironic that it trains its personnel to overcome these cruel and degrading practices given the fact the US is the main perpetrator of these foul deeds. A Freudian might say this is a case of national projection of its evil ways onto others: Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Extraordinary Renditon, Guantánamo death camp, criminal Iraq and Afghan wars in general.

From: Luedke, Barry T IT1 Faso, SERE [mailto:barry.luedke@navy.mil]
Sent: Tue 6/30/2009 6:28 AM
To: Kirstein, Peter N.

Hey Pete,

By the way, nice propaganda blog about me on your website:  http://english.sxu.edu/sites/kirstein/
That’s the problem with liars like you. You distort the truth. I never said anything about “loving guns”, yet you put that right under my name. It is both funny and pathetic at the same time. You claim to be a history professor? If you knew anything about history, you would know that socialism, and the way you think have not only been complete failures, but were responsible for the slaughter of millions of people. There were others in history who thought the way you do. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Lenin. Have you ever heard of them? They were responsible for the deaths of nearly 80,000,000 people. I think you can learn a lot from history. If only you would enlighten yourself to truth instead of propaganda and lies.

IT1(SW) Luedke
SERE EAST NASB
Brunswick, ME

—————————————————————————————

From: Kirstein, Peter N.
Sent: Tue 6/30/2009 10:35 AM
To: Luedke, Barry T IT1 Faso, SERE

Dear Barry Luedke:

I think calling me a “liar” does not contribute to the dialogue between those of us who are antiwar and those who are more bellicose. However, I think you fail to differentiate between democratic socialism, fascism and communism. Socialism or even Marxian communism does not envision a strong central government with dictatorial powers and the absence of a civil society. Indeed socialism emphasises equality, freedom with a vital state supervisory role.

In the US we unfortunately are not as far advanced in achieving socialism as other countries but we are not totally lacking. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants and the stimulus package are examples of using the state to create a more just society.

So try to avoid sensationalising, as if you were FOX news, what socialism is and what it is not. I think your quotation of your entire first e-mail indeed reflected love of guns and the use or threat of force and destruction to achieve peace. I believe I adequately described your message.

BTW: Norman Thomas was a dear man, a wonderful person. He was not a warmonger, a lover of dictatorship or even a communist. Many of his views by the way did become practice as we moved, however slowly, toward a more socialist view of society with less competition and more cooperation.

Yours against American militarism.

Peter

Image added to post. Slight editing for consistency.

From: Luedke, Barry T IT1 Faso, SERE [mailto:barry.luedke@navy.mil]
Sent: Mon 6/29/2009 2:50 PM
To: Kirstein, Peter N.
Subject: Something to ponder….

Know guns, know peace.
No guns, no peace…

IT1(SW) Luedke
SERE EAST NASB
Brunswick, ME   “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”     - Norman Mattoon Thomas 1928.

From: Kirstein, Peter N.
Sent: Mon 6/29/2009 6:25 PM
To: Luedke, Barry T IT1 Faso, SERE

Dear Information Technician Luedke:

I agree with former presidential candidate Norman Thomas and do hope we achieve democratic socialism so our 48,000,000 citizens without health care would be covered LIKE you are at public expense and those without jobs are taken care of etc. If you are in the navy, you appear to have been brainwashed into believing that only violence can defend our freedom and that capitalism is superior, which unregulated can lead to horrendous suffering and social dislocation. Also those officers, I presume navy, who authorised those snipers to murder like cowards those, black, young, desperate, poor Somali pirates have blood on their hands. There was no reason to treat unresisting civilians in that manner. It lowers the navy to the level of those pirates in my opinion.

Also if you contact me again, kindly address me by name and sign your e-mail. I expect you as I did when I was in the military to comport yourself in a professional manner toward those you claim to serve.

I am sincerely yours,

Peter N. Kirstein

The New York Times which broke the story due to army-leaked information and to its credit persisted in unmasking the criminal Washington University in St Louis surgeon Dr Timothy R. Kuklo, has reported that he received $788,280 in payments from Medtronic between 2001 and 2009. Buried in the story, however, and not very well edited is the revelation that Medtronic’s Pay to Fake scheme also dished out $64,000 for “indirect” expenses such as travel to professional meetings etc.

Such a payment is hardly “indirect” whatever that means. Travel is expensive: hotel, rental, air travel. Therefore $852,280 was paid to Dr Kuklo. One may surmise that the colonel either independently or in collaboration with Medtronic faked and published medical-research claims that its bioengineered bone-growth product Infuse was a breakthrough in lower-limb restoration. Dr Kuklo lied about collaboration with other researchers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center by forging their signatures and was disgraced with the retraction of a published article in the London-based Journal of Bone and Spine Surgery.

Yet the New York Times made an error in its June 17 report. It identified the fake medical researcher as “assistant medical professor” in the Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine.  He is an associate professor of orthopaedic surgery with putative clinical specialties in the Cervical Spine (all pathologies); Spinal Deformity (both pediatric and adult); Spinal Tumors; Spine Trauma which this link clearly authenticates. Rarely does an assistant professor have tenure. The colonel has tenure but should be fired on the grounds of moral turpitude.

Dr Kuklo’s next home? His current one is worth $2.1 million according to the New York Times .

I would opine that the intentional publication of falsified medical research that could lead to misguided and harmful patient treatment is criminal.  The potential for inappropriate use of Infuse as a result of the doctor’s article I think merits incarceration as criminal negligence. I would argue that the falsification of signatures of four distinguished physicians–some of whom are senior army officers– to create the impression of authentic team research investigatory methods is certainly libelous. To place the names of other researchers on a falsified article would certainly appear to indicate libel in deliberately and knowing publishing false information that could damage a physician’s career.  I know I would sue an investigator who listed me on an article in which data was invented, patient cohorts fabricated and conclusions concocted as part of a Pay to Fake scheme.

The failure to receive Army approval for publication should at least merit a dishonourable discharge and a retroactive reduction in rank to private. I have argued that the University of Connecticut should revoke Dr Kuklo’s medical degree from that institution. I am also questioning whether the administration of Washington University in St Louis Medical School should be fired or if tenured reassigned to other duties for allowing both Dr Kuklo and Dr K Dan Riew to either become players of a Pay to Fake scheme or cover up their venality. Administrators have a responsibility to ensure the highest ethical behaviour on the part of their faculty and failure to do so with such apparent insouciance is unworthy of the esteemed institution.

While I do not know if Dr Riew has committed any unprofessional research fraud, it is apparent he did not sufficiently disclose his massive compensation as a consultant to Medtronic in which hundreds of thousands of dollars were paid for  “product development and innovation.” Pay to Fake?? The question is legitimate without making a direct allegation.

Medtronic (MDT) raised its dividend today by 9% and closed at 33.35 up 1.28%. It’s nice to know its shareholders are doing well with this blood money. They would be well advised, however, to use some other big pharma company’s products.

Other articles on disgraced Colonel Kuklo:

Million Dollar Baby

June 16. 2009

May 30, 2009

Dr Kuklo leave of absence!

May 22, 2009

May 20, 2009

May 18, 2009

May 17, 2009 Dr Riew first critiqued

May 15, 2009

May 14, 2009

May 13, 2009

comments and information to Kirstein@sxu.edu

I was the first to report that Dr K Dan Riew, the Mildred B. Simon Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at the Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine, did not fully disclose to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch the reasons for his defence of his colleague Dr Timothy Kuklo. I wrote on May 17 that Dr Riew’s comments  appeared to be inappropriate and biased. Dr Riew defended the colonel’s possible forging of four signatures of non-participatory co-investigators as perhaps resulting from the inconvenience of not having a FAX machine. Dr Kuklo was simply unable to receive the actual signatures was Dr Riew’s strange justification. He also gave a stirring defence of a colleague who was accused of  faking medical research while on staff at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He claimed an unsubstantiated efficacy of Medtonic’s protein based Infuse for bone restoration of lower limbs. He had violated Army regulations in research protocol and is banned forever more and had an article retracted by the London-based The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. The American journal by the same name rejected the venal Colonel Kuklo’s article according to the New York Times.

I was the first to detail and explicate the significant collaborative relationship between the two orthopaedic surgeons at Washington University Medical School. Yet the waters are rising further  because Dr Riew is also a paid medical consultant for Medtronic-a company that describes itself as “the world leader in medical technology.”  Senator Charles Grassley,  a moderate Republican of Iowa, has been attempting to investigate the corporate corruption of medical research whereby allegedly neutral-based study is funded by companies hoping to achieve greater FDA-use  approval or simply promote an existing product. Pay to Fake is basically what this is about. Doctors get big bucks to conduct research and lie about a medical product’s glorious impact on wellness. The utter lack of transparency may be the reason why so many medical products and drugs are subject to recall, later receive black box warnings or are proven to be dangerous.

pax de deux

The St Louis Beacon, an online publication, has revealed that the Medtronic cancer is spreading rapidly throughout the Washington University School of Medicine. Dr Riew was also receiving payments from Medtronic and apparently is under investigation by the Senate Finance Committee.

Apparently Dr Riew has lied about the amount of compensation from Medtronic:

“Specifically, Grassley said that according to documents submitted by the university from 2006, “‘Dr. Riew indicated that he received compensation of less than $10,000 from Medtronic. In fact, Medtronic reported to me that there was not a single year from 2003 to 2007 for which Dr. Riew received less than $10,000. In fact, he received well over $10,000 in compensation during each of those years.’”

Dr Riew of course says he provided estimates that preceded the actual money ponied up yet for 5 years he was receiving financial compensation from Medtronic. In 2005 he received $133,000, a tad more than the $50,000+ he recorded. This physician should return all the money he received over this period to Medtronic or publicly produce an image of a check of the total amount given to some medical unit. I would suggest the American Lung Association, the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago and/or Northwestern Memorial Hospital. They are world class and have no history of Pay to Fake

I was right even though it was a hunch. Dr Riew’s rosy scenario in the St Louis Post-Dispatch belied the fact he too was on the take from Medtronic–a company that should be fined and frankly terminated by the Obama administration, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Justice.

I am not suggesting that Dr K Dan Riew has engaged in the type of career-ending, license-revocation actions as has the inscrutable Dr Kuklo. I have suggested Dr Riew is less than impartial in his assessment of Dr Kuklo and could be guilty of inappropriate financial dealings with Medtronic. Whether his research is tainted and skewed to conceal actual research findings is beyond my pay grade. I am a professor of history and got into this because of my father’s long-term faculty status at Wash U Medical School and other family ties to the university.  I attended it while in college. The medical school is in crisis and I believe should fire its dean and other senior officers in a clean sweep of this detritus.

hat tip to TP

Other articles on disgraced Colonel Kuklo:

Million Dollar Baby

June 16. 2009

May 30, 2009

Dr Kuklo leave of absence!

May 22, 2009

May 20, 2009

May 18, 2009

May 17, 2009 Dr Riew first critiqued

May 15, 2009

May 14, 2009

May 13, 2009

comments and information to Kirstein@sxu.edu

The essay below has been published in a book, Necessary Discourse on Hysteria, that accompanied a major art exhibit at the Koroska Gallery of Fine Arts, Slovenj Gradec, Slovenia that was held in November-December 2008. Its chief curators were Jernej Kozar and Rado Poggi. While the essay was written before the 2008 presidential election, it has been updated and its main arguments remain valid. I just received a copy of the exhibit publication with essays from other international contributors and images of the exhibit. This is the full citation: Necessary Discourse on Hysteria. Slovenj Gradec, Slovenia: The Koroska Gallery of Fine and Applied Arts Slovenj Gradej, 2009. {ISBN: 978-961-91463-5-4}

“American Imperialism and the Paranoid Style of American Politics.”

Richard Hofstadter, a major American historian of the postwar era, wrote an essay for Harper’s magazine, The Paranoid Style in American Politics in 1964. Whether it was Roman Catholicism, populism or masonry, communism or McCarthyism, this tendency to construe America as a nation under siege is a strong undercurrent of its oppressive culture and ethos. Yet I think paranoia is to a large extent cynically manufactured by the ruling classes in order to advance their personal quest of power projection and global domination.

An example was the shameless political advertisement of Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York. It depicted a phone ringing in the White House at 3:00 a.m. to suggest that then Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, could not be trusted as Commander in Chief and lacks the capacity to deal with an unannounced threat to the national interest. The ad was also inherently racist, as it depicted non-African-American children sleeping at that hour, but vulnerable if an African-American were elected president. It simply pandered to age-old hysterical themes of racial and national-security insecurities. Hysteria is frequently a manufactured by-product of power maximizing. An imperial, racist nation that practices global state terrorism is unwilling to encounter its own malevolence and so it projects onto others irrational qualities of evil and power. Recall the criminal invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003 was fueled by a hysterical overreaction to both the potential power and putative presence of non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

Jihadists, Muslims in general, terrorists, Al Qaeda, Hizbollah, Hamas, al Quds unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (P.K.K.) are designated or depicted as terrorist organisations. The Department of State would be well served to designate the United States as a terrorist organisation if that term is going to be utilised to designate crimes against civilians committed for political objectives. The deemphasis on using the word “terror” is noticeable since Barack Hussein Obama became the 44th president on January 20, 2009.

Yet the continued listing of so-called terrorist nations or non-state actors is an effort to dehumanise and marginalise those who have legitimate grievances against the United States, Israel and other oppressive governments. No other nation is as frightened as the United States about the external world and yet ironically no other nation can project power across the full spectrum of military assets. Yet this power has led to a perpetual unease, a sense of hysteria, a compulsion and addiction to war, a rogue state status of human rights violations and a slow but palpable decline in both the standard of living and civil liberties.

America’s greatest enemy is not external but internal. The power elites ranging from the neo-conservatives, the Israel Lobby, the centrist supporters of imperial overstretch such the Council on Foreign Relations, the Democratic and Republican parties, the immoral and unethical rulers of Wall Street and the Pentagon are the true enemies of the people. Great nations cannot sustain popular support of its endless wars and military adventurism unless it convinces the populace that their freedoms are enhanced by this madness.

Most Americans are proud of their country’s superpower status and are convinced that their freedom and putative democracy are sustained and nourished by constant muscular vigilance, frequent wars and an unrestrained worshipping of its military culture. Indeed, patriotism and love of country are to a large extent predicated on the belief that the American military is the sine qua non for our prosperity, protection and stability as a nation. Military academies, think tanks, specialised military universities, war-memorial monuments as prolific as McDonalds’s restaurants, veterans groups, Air Force Ones, marine presidential helicopters, colour guards, bellicose “bombs bursting in air” national anthems, p.o.w. flags, national holidays such as Memorial Day, Veterans Day, Independence Day and lesser ones as Armed Forces Day and the universality of the American flag are constant reminders of martial attributes that embrace war and violence to resolve interstate conflict. Washington, D.C. is virtually a military theme park that reflects the core values of the nation with scant attention to international peace and security.

At some point, the military empire that undermines our nation’s security needs to be dismantled and downsized in a manner that would not lead to unilateral disarmament beyond legitimate self-defence, but would clearly reduce the capacity of the arrogant hyperpower to wage war. Speaking truth to power, the United States of America is such a dangerous, irresponsible and destructive force, that for the sake of international peace and security, America must become a less powerful and more rational-state actor. The Fate of the Earth hangs in the balance.

Presidential Election, 2008:

I would prefer that one of the major candidates would have stated categorically that American imperialist forces would be withdrawn from Iraq without the usual qualifications of “orderly,” “systematically” etc. and critique the war in a manner that does not merely emphasise its impact on United States vital strategic interests in Afghanistan but as an immoral and ruthless projection of American power. The only candidate that did not vote for the authorisation to use force was former Senator Barack Obama. Even though he was not serving in the United States Senate but the Illinois State Senate, he publicly opposed the war on October 2, 2002, nine days before the Senate, with a Democratic party majority I might add, approved the evil joint-war resolution to send American military forces to Iraq.

In comparison to then Senator Clinton, there could be construed a greater credibility in the Illinois senator’s plan to withdraw one to two combat brigades a month and complete the withdrawal in sixteen months. As president, he appears to be implementing this phased withdrawal from Iraq and then deploying them to Afghanistan.

Senator Obama stated before his election as president he would engage in direct diplomacy with heads of state with which the United States has adversarial relations. These would include Iran, Cuba, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Venezuela and Syria that would be diplomatically engaged without preconditions but with a suggested agenda of relevant items. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Mrs. Clinton, now ironically secretary of state, rejected such a rapprochement as naïve and as giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

The old politics of Cold War era confrontation does not quickly subside from this ruthless nation. A new politics is certainly needed where hegemonic aspirations are tempered with a more collegial and internationalist view of world politics. I think it naïve that America’s role in the world can be more constructive and less lethal in the absence of a more creative inter-state diplomatic agenda.

The costs of the Iraq war may reach three trillion dollars according to Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. The war budget alone is annually about one trillion when, in addition to the Pentagon, one includes the intelligence services, the Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Also the soaring health care costs for tens of thousands of wounded and psychologically damaged Iraq War veterans are part of the unsustainable economic burdens of the war to the United States economy. Rich nations do not have unlimited resources to police the world. Forty eight million Americans are without health insurance and the gap in life expectancy between the rich and poor is growing. Poor African-American males die at age 66.9 but the life expectancy of affluent white women is 81.1 years. This is not entirely the result of the Iraq War but it is arguable that the priorities of war, hegemonic domination and white Judeo-Christian supremacy demonstrate that a militarised society does not emphasise social equality at home, much less abroad.

Dr. Timothy R. Kuklo is an associate professor of orthopaedic medicine at the Washington University of St Louis School of Medicine. He has taken a leave of absence from his position pending a final determination whether he should be fired, forced to resign or allowed to return to his duties. As I began to explore the accomplishments of the four physicians, “A. T. Groth,”  “R. C. Anderson,”  “H. M. Frisch” and “R. B. Islinger,” whose names appeared as forgeries on Colonel Timothy Kuklo’s specious article: “Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 for grade III open segmental tibial fractures from combat injuries in Iraq,” it is very disturbing to learn of the visiblity of this article.

But how? How does one purge this article? Males like myself also clean so excuse any gender bias.

The article invented data that claimed that Infuse was acutely effective in lower-limb tibia restoration at a rate of 92% with only a 3.2% infection rate. The article was confirmed to be falsified  and was “retracted” by the Journal of Bone and Spine Surgery in March 2009. The article had been published in the peer-review journal in August 2008.  Despite The Journal of Bone and Spine Surgery’s ex cathedra proclamation that the apparent Medronic Inc. pay-for-fake-medical-research was “formally withdrawn from the scientific literature,” such is not the case electronically.

Tens of millions of Internet users seek medical guidance on the web. It is one of the largest categories of inquiry. One can find the above article listed in many medical-resource bibliographies and search engines. I am in the process of finding information about the abused “co-authors” that Dr Kuklo faked on his manuscript. One is Dr H. M. Frisch who has a rather impressive dossier in examining orthopaedic injuries to the casualties of war. I would prefer we not wage immoral wars but we do and someone has to heal the wounded. I was impressed with Dr Frisch prolific scholarship but horrified to encounter that the colonel’s article was still attributed to Dr Frisch et al. On the labmeeting.com website, one encounters the Kuklo forgery in full glory. It is unfair that Dr Frisch is still identified with this faked article even though it was “withdrawn” three months ago.

+ View Abstract
Helgeson MD, Potter BK, Tucker CJ, Frisch HM, and Shawen SB
Orthopedics 32(5), 2009 May - Who cited this? | PubMed ID: 19472965 | Fulltext

Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 for grade III open segmental tibial fractures from combat injuries in Iraq.
Kuklo TR, Groth AT, Anderson RC, Frisch HM, and Islinger RB
The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume 90(8):1068, 2008 Aug - Who cited this? | PubMed ID: 18669965

Treatment of open periarticular shoulder fractures sustained in combat-related injuries.
Mack AW, Groth AT, Frisch HM, and Doukas WC
American journal of orthopedics (Belle Mead, N.J.) 37(3):130-5, 2008 Mar

From iraq back to iraq: modern combat orthopaedic care.
Hayda RA, Mazurek MT, Powell Iv ET, Richardson MW, Frisch HM, Andersen RC, and Ficke JR

Moderators’ summary: antibiotics and infection.
Calhoun JH and Frisch HM
The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 14(10 Suppl), 2006 Oct -

Definitive treatment of combat casualties at military medical centers.
Andersen RC, Frisch HM, Farber GL, and Hayda RA
The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 14(10 Suppl), 2006 Oct

Galenicom, a major medical search engine, also retains the retracted article. It also is linked on a Spanish-language version which I am reproducing to demonstrate the global reach that this article “enjoys.”

Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 for grade III open segmental tibial fractures from combat injuries in Iraq.
Autores: T R Kuklo, A T Groth, R C Anderson, H M Frisch, R B Islinger Idioma: Eng. Fecha: 2008-08-01
Revista: The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume (0301-620X)
Entrega: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Aug;90(8):1068-72

Abstract:

This is a retrospective consecutive case series of 138 Gustillo-Anderson type IIIB and IIIC segmental tibial fractures treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in soldiers injured in Iraq between March 2003 and March 2005. Five patients with a head injury and four who were lost to follow-up were excluded. The patients were treated definitively with either a ringed external fixator or a reamed intramedullary nail, evaluated in terms of supplementary bone grafting with either autogenous bone (group 1, 67 patients) or recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 at 1.50 mg/ml applied to an absorbable collagen sponge (group 2, 62 patients). The mechanism of injury, defect size and classification, associated injuries, presence of infection, preliminary treatment/fixation, number of procedures before definitive management, time to and details of definitive management, subsequent infection, re-operation, smoking history and other complications were noted. Radiographs were assessed for union, delayed union or nonunion by an independent investigator. All the patients were male. Their mean age was 26.6 years (20 to 42) and the mean follow-up was for 15.6 months (12 to 32). Group 2 had a slightly higher profile of concomitant injuries and a slightly worse fracture classification, but these were not significant. The rate of union was 76% (51 of 67) for group 1 and 92% for group 2 (57 of 62; p = 0.015). There was also a higher rate of subsequent infection in group 1 (14.9%) compared with group 2 (3.2%; p = 0.001) and a higher rate of re-operation (28%) in group 1 (p = 0.003). There were no observed hypersensitivity reactions to the recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 implant.
Copyright: The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume
Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid, St. Louis, Missouri 63110, USA. kuklot wustl.edu
EBSCO - HTML (con suscripción)
HighWire Press - HTML (con suscripción)
Ovid Technologies, Inc. - HTML (con suscripción)
ProQuest Information and Learning - HTML (con suscripción)
Temas: Adulto, Proteinas Morfogeneticas De Hueso, Trasplantacion Osea, Estudios De Seguimiento, Fijacion De Fractura, Fracturas Expuestas, Humanos, Iraq War, 2003 -, Varón, Personal Militar, Proteinas Recombinantes, Estudios Retrospectivos, Statistics as Topic, Fracturas De La Tibia, Factor Beta Transformador De Crecimiento, Trasplantacion Autologa, Resultado Del Tratamiento, Estados Unidos

Versión para imprimirVersión para imprimir
Festuc discotecas madrid discotecas barcelona discotecas ibiza discotecas
Artículos de otras especialidades:
Medicina Intensiva, Cardiología, Neumología, Anestesiología y Reanimación, Pediatría, Cirugía Cardiovascular, Cirugía General - Ap. Digestivo, Medicina de Urgencias, Medicina del trabajo, Reumatología, Oftalmología, Traumatología

It is possible that physicians in the developing world may not have as much access to the sordid history of this article and may apply its findings to patient care. While it is likely that most physicians who practice spine and bone fracture medicine are aware that Infuse should not be used based upon Dr Kuklo’s invented claims, I am concerned that the cyberspace dissemination of this article poses a danger to unsuspecting physicians and patients.

Nota bene: To those who have defended Dr Kuklo in comments to me at kirstein@sxu.edu the issue is not whether he has helped individual patients, which apparently and fortunately has occurred. The issue is whether a physician should practice medicine  and escape any sanctions who falsifies research, fakes the names of other authors to give the impression of a group effort, and was part of an apparent pay-to-fake-medical-research scheme. His actions were malicious and utterly at variance with the advancement of medicine. If specific allegations and information are demonstrated to be inaccurate, I will correct them. I have written more on this incident than any other blogger and have considerable knowledge of this affair. I have scrupulously attempted to combine simultaneously the factual and the normative which in my opinion is the raison d’être of reporting:

Other articles on disgraced Colonel Kuklo:

Million Dollar Baby

June 16. 2009

May 30, 2009

Dr Kuklo leave of absence!

May 22, 2009

May 20, 2009

May 18, 2009

May 17, 2009 Dr Riew first critiqued

May 15, 2009

May 14, 2009

May 13, 2009

comments and information to Kirstein@sxu.edu

The New York Times is reporting that Dr Timothy R. Kuklo, associate professor of orthopaedic surgery with a specialty in spinal and lower-limb restoration, has been placed on a leave of absence from Washington Univesity in St Louis School of Medicine. This may be construed as a quasi suspension or as a prelude to dismissal depending on the circumstances unfolding at the St Louis campus.

The power of the press is considerable. The New York Times ran four stories on this case in which Colonel Kuklo {ret} falsified research that he performed on wounded soldiers from Iraq, lied about having four co-authors from Walter Reed Army Medical Center for an article retracted by its publisher and recklessly promoted the efficacy of the Medtronic Inc. product Infuse. Dr Kuklo claimed it was a breakthrough in bone growth restoration in lower-limb injured patients as opposed to other more routine treatments and inferentially in spine-cervical application as well.

Although Dr Kuklo’s article was withdrawn from publication and the army determined he did not follow appropriate protocol in submitting or publishing “research” while on staff at Walter Reed, there appeared to be foot dragging in resolving this matter at Washington University. Now, due to mounting pressure including possible Congressional inquiry into the doctor’s consultancy relationship with the Minneapolis firm, Medtronic Inc. that began in 2006, Dr Kuklo is now essentially suspended. While no academic institution should render judgment based on outside pressure, clearly the facts in this case were so substantial that to ignore them would have been dismissive of a university’s mission: to search for the truth. Dr Kuklo cannot meet patients; he cannot consult on patient care. He is prohibited from performing any duties at the medical school or its affiliated hospitals such as Barnes-Jewish.

If this is an actual suspension, he should be compensated with benefits and pension contributions as before. If this is a prelude to a dismissal based upon misconduct and unethical behaviour, then such a decision need not be accompanied by continued compensation. As a tenured faculty member, Dr Kuklo cannot, repeat cannot be suspended without pay but he could be dismissed for moral turpitude.

If he voluntarily took a leave of absence, then normally that period is not subject to remuneration. I would be concerned if he were forced to take an unpaid leave of absence.  However, given the circumstances in which his concoted research may have harmed patients, it is clearly in the public interest that he not practice medicine.

While he is presently not in a position to exploit patients for corporate subsidised research, it is hoped that he will never practice medicine in the future. I believe he should upon due consideration be relieved of his medical license and his privilege to practice medicine in the United States. He is a fraud, a physician without ethical compass, and a disgrace to the medical profession. One may feel compassion for a forty-eight year old professor whose career is essentially terminated and perhaps pity that a talented doctor and lawyer has self-destructed.

However, in the field of medicine, one MUST not harm patients or lose sight of one’s primary mission. To heal, to succor, to serve as an advocate for patient care. Publishing falsified research that could be improperly used by unsuspecting physicians in managing the care of their patients is so egregious that it is difficult for me to imagine any useful purpose in the restoration of his medical career but considerable relief that he is not in a position to exploit other patients under his care.

To those like my father, who along with so many others built Washington University School of Medicine into one of the world’s leading medical faculties and centers of  wellness and patient care, you may rest easier that this sordid affair is apparently reaching its final disposition and that the integrity and honour of Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine is in the process of restoration.

Kirstein Blog other Colonel Kuklo articles:

Million Dollar Baby

June 16. 2009

May 30, 2009

Dr Kuklo is on leave of absence!

May 22, 2009

May 20, 2009

May 18, 2009

May 17, 2009

May 15, 2009

May 14, 2009

May 13, 2009

comments and information to Kirstein@sxu.edu

I received the following email from a John Lane. One of many I might add and have carefully scrutinised which to publish since I am on a university server. Some have submitted very damaging charges about Dr Kuklo which I am pursuing but I am not a journalist or part of an investigative team so what I cannot verify I do not post. Yet I do believe my reporting of the Kuklo matter has been accurate, very detailed and professionally responsible. I have NOT called for Dr Kuklo’s dismissal at this point but the evidence against him is so grave that such a resolution may be the only reasonable one to protect his patients and the integrity of Washington University School of Medicine.

The issue is not whether Dr Kuklo is medically competent as the testimonial from Mr Lane emphasises. I am sure his training affords him ample opportunity to demonstrate such competencies and am pleased Mr Lane has benefitted from treatment. The issue is whether Dr Kuklo is medically responsible and trustworthy to continue the practice of medicine in a clinical setting. He faked research on the Medtronic Corp. product Infuse which was published in a peer-review article, “Recombinant human morphogenetic protein-2 for type grade III open segmental tibial fractures from combat injuries in Iraq.”  He lied like a criminal in forging the names of four other army officers as fake co-investigators of the Infuse project and benefited financially as a consultant of Medtronic. That unseemly association in which research outcomes are influenced by being on the payroll of the product’s manufacturer has ended. Medtronic has now SUSPENDED him from that association but the barn door has been closed after the pig escaped.

http://www.osseotech.com/images/1168924963infuse.gif

Greed and personal enrichment trumped business and professional ethics as Medtronic and Dr Kuklo collaborated as shameful hucksters of Infuse.

Dr Kuklo claimed a dramatic efficacious response, in comparison to traditional therapies, from the protein-based bone-growth product Infuse without any evidence: the patients at Walter Reed did not exist; there was no statistical evidence that his data existed; his investigation was not based on any actual research. He was claiming Infuse was 92% effective and just made up the data. This disgraceful and unprofessional conduct is now being investigated by the Congress or at least  by Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa. The article may have caused deaths or injury or needless suffering for patients whose surgeons may have been unduly influenced by the article’s claims in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery prior to its retraction.

Mr Lane defends Dr Riew whom I praised as an “esteemed” and gifted physician. I merely rejected emphatically his rather gratuitous defence of Dr Kuklo’s character and penchant for fabricating co-authors as the result of an absence of fax machines etc. as biased and rather self-serving given their collaboration on many research projects from book chapters to journal articles. I link my response at the appropriate point in Mr Lane’s email.

Mr Lane is incensed about my email response seven years ago to an Air Force  Academy cadet.  I referred to the incident in my last Kuklo post and have written and lectured on this incident across the U.S. and Europe. I think I am quite an expert on suspension having studied, experienced and published on the sanction. Mr Lane links snopes.com which is a militant prowar right-wing website which is entitled to its opinion. I offer another one which is more tolerant of dissent. My  Blog Category A: Kirstein Academic Freedom Case  carries more information on the academic freedom case. I would opine that a robust, enraged email that condemned the baby-killing tactics of collateral damage was a denunciation of war and death. I think Colonel Timothy R.  Kuklo, M.D. is guilty of a malicious disregard of his professional responsiblities in which real people may have been proffered inadequate treatment. It merits an immediate suspension to protect the public from this dishonest and unethical physician.

————————————————————————————-

From: John Lane [gorams21@hotmail.com]

Sent: Fri 5/22/2009 3:14 AM
To: Kirstein, Peter N. {kirstein@sxu.edu}
Cc:
Subject: Dr. Kuklo
Attachments:

I have lived in severe chronic pain for the past 5 years. I have had 3 surgeries and 3 surgeons and have not only not improved but my condition worsened. I am 44 years old and have a wife and 2 young sons. I am a local business owner in the St.Louis area.

I was recently refered to Dr.Kuklo after getting to the point of not being able to function on almost any level. My Doctors had told me I would never improve and I had in fact became disabled.I could never put into words how difficult my families life had become or mine due to my disability.

I went to see Dr. Kuklo in December 2008. After some tests he convinced me to have yet another spinal surgery.He explained that my previous surgeries were collapsed and they had not fused. He wanted to perform a  complicated 3 level cervical fusion and use the medtronic BMP. Without much hope and knowing this surgery was going to be hell I agreed since Dr. Kuklo’s confidence gave me some hope.

On 1/16/2009  I had the surgery. Today I am mostly pain free. I am no longer on narcotics of which I was taking very large amounts and still in terrible pain. I have returned to work and playing with my kids. I am not constantly irritable and depressed, I am in fact overwhelmed with gratitude most days.

Your attacks and demands for Dr.Kuklo to be suspended are not a service to this community. I believe that these are unfounded allegations at this point.I also can tell you that I have not had any Doctor that I felt cared for my well being the way Dr.KUKLO has.

I have seen some other of the nasty things you have said and done. You are the one that is the disgrace. How many people have you healed. I have heard several Physicians publically defend Dr.Kuklo . I also read you attacks against Dr. [K Daniel] Riew for coming to his colleagues defense.Dr. Riew is considered one of the top 2 or 3 in the country for disc replacement surgery. You are now trying to discredit him.

You must be a sick and hateful person that just wants to see his name around controversy.I read about you on snopes.com
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/cadet.asp

You should retract your writing until the truth is out.
JOHN LANE

ST.Peters Mo.

Other articles on disgraced Colonel Kuklo:

Million Dollar Baby

June 16. 2009

May 30, 2009

Dr Kuklo leave of absence!

May 22, 2009

May 20, 2009

May 18, 2009

May 17, 2009 Dr Riew first critiqued

May 15, 2009

May 14, 2009

May 13, 2009

comments and information to Kirstein@sxu.edu

As the academic misconduct case involving Washington University in St Louis Associate Professor, Dr Timothy Kulko, continues to garner intense interest, the public is increasingly frustrated in not obtaining any information concerning possible sanctions that might be levied against the colonel. Before his retirement he was on staff at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and treated Iraq War casualties with serious lower-limb injuries incurred during the Bush administration War in Iraq.

First: I believe Washington University’s reluctance to discuss this matter is appropriate. I also cannot condemn Dr Kuklo’s strict refusal to respond to any inquiries concerning this matter, however, frustrating that may be.

“To protect the people involved, and the integrity of an investigation, Washington University does not confirm whether any particular case is under review,” spokeswoman Joni Westerhouse stated on Tuesday in an AP story.

Clearly, given his training as a lawyer at Georgetown and possible counsel, he has been advised to maintain his silence. The New York Times which has extensively consulted my blog postings on this matter has run two articles which elevated an inside baseball matter between the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, and Walter Reed into a growing controversy. Colonel Kuklo’s faked his research in order to sell Medtronic’s Infuse protein-bone growth product; he lied about four co-authors who did not particpate in the study; the JBJS retracted the article in which this army surgeon falsified data concerning lower-limb casualties from the Iraq War and as a coward falesly implicated other army officers in this shameful study.

Second: When an academic institution is considering sanctions against an academician, it should conduct its inquiry in secrecy. The public, including the New York Times should have its efforts resisted to acquire information. As one who has been involved in controversy concerning a suspension and academic freedom to protest robustly war, I prefer that administrators not comment on pending cases of controversy which might unnecessarily influence internal proceedings.

Third: Suspension from an academic appointment is a major sanction that must never result from external-public pressure on an academic institution. However, third parties in a democracy may vigorously advocate sanctions or the reverse. The American Association of University Professors guidelines should be adhered to by an institution to insure fairness and due process is afforded the individual. Suspensions can only be meted out, “if immediate harm to the faculty member or others is threatened.” The A.A.U.P. Polcy Documents and Reports Redbook reiterates in numerous documents the extraordinary circumstance under which an academician may be suspended in the United States. The documents are the ninth “1970 Interpretive Comment” of the “1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” the “1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings” and the revised 2006 “Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure.”

Fourth: I believe Dr Kuklo prior to any final determination of his status should be suspended, with full pay and benefits, and prohibited from treating patients or carrying out any of his duties. His article, that has been withdrawn from the medical literature, may have already caused harm to patients in its falsification of the efficacy of Medtronic Corp. Infuse. Claiming it was 92% effective from a ghost, non-existent study cohort, it may have been used by orthopaedic surgeons or physiatrists to rehabilitate injured persons. Dr Kuklo has apparently lost all sense of professional obligation to “do no harm” and indeed may have caused grievous harm by his actions to leg-injured persons desperately seeking limb restoration or healing.

Washington Univesity in St Louis School of Medicine should announce a suspension so patients will not be distracted or frustrated in attempting to make appointments and to insure a smooth transition in the interim. That is certainly appropriate because it would serve the public interest. It could be argued that Dr Kuklo does represent a clear and present danger to patients that he is treating at Washington University and that he should be suspended from all duties pending an ultimate finding of his suitability to maintain his tenured appointment. I believe the public interest is a factor in insuring that professional excellence in administering health care not be compromised.

Other articles on disgraced Colonel Kuklo:

June 18, 2009

June 16. 2009

May 30, 2009

Dr Kuklo leave of absence!

May 22, 2009

May 20, 2009

May 18, 2009

May 17, 2009 Dr Riew first critiqued

May 15, 2009

May 14, 2009

May 13, 2009

comments and information to Kirstein@sxu.edu

This magnificent ad and I don’t wear LensCrafters products and have absolutely no desire to peddle their product, contains an unidentifed song and artist. Cutwater, the ad agency does not identify the artist in any of its literature nor does extensive online ad company trade sites and promos reveal the musician’s name. However, this is a great ad, digitally mastered from a studio version with acoustic guitar of course and virtuoso banjo and it really infuriates me that the singer is not acknowledged online. The Internet is full of inquiries over who the singer is? Well it’s the Scottish-born Donovan singing “Colours” which appeared on the Universal Soldier album. This was released the same year when Donovan was chastened in a hotel room by Dylan’s winging of “It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue” in Don Pennebaker’s epic Dylan-centered masterpiece, Dont Look Back (1967)! {without an apostrophe in “Dont.”}

Iowa Republican Senator Charles E. Grassley to investigate Kuklo affair concerning the article that was submitted under false pretenses.

The disgraceful conduct of Doctor Timothy F. Kuklo, associate professor of orthopaedic medicine at the Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine, led to his published paper being withdrawn from the scholarly record:

The “research” was conducted when Colonel Kuklo was on staff at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

1) He faked the data.

2) He forged the signatures of four co-authors, one of whom is a lieutenant colonel in the army.

3) The purpose of the paper was to misrepresent an imaginary 92% efficacy of Infuse in bone-growth restoration, a product produced by Medtronic that Dr Kuklo worked for:

4) The public must make sure that this physician is driven out of the practice of medicine. His patients were Iraq War veterans with severe lower-limb tibia fractures and his research, falsely presented, could have led to the inappropriate application of Infuse for other soldiers and civilians. He is a disgrace to the profession of medicine and to academic in general and Washington University cannot continue to ignore this and maintain his listing as one of the Best Doctors in the U.S.

5) My father was a captain in the army, a medical doctor in combat in the Aleutians Islands during World War II and taught in the Washington University in St Louis Medical School for over thirty years. I am glad he was never sullied  by or had the opportunity to meet Colonel Kuklo. I know my father would have not been silent and would have demanded any colleague commiting such acts of academic misconduct and fraudulent medicine be held accountable for his or her actions.

Withdrawal of a paper
J. Scott, MA, FRCS, Editor1

1 Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 22 Buckingham Street, London WC2N 6ET, UK.

Correspondence should be sent to Mr J. Scott; e-mail: j.scott@jbjs.org.uk

A paper entitled “Recombinant human morphogenetic protein-2 for type grade III open segmental tibial fractures from combat injuries in Iraq” was submitted to the JBJS[Br] with a covering letter dated 9 October 2007 which was signed by the authors. The corresponding author was Dr. T. Kukla. [sic!]  The letter of transmittal included the statement that each of the authors had read and approved the final manuscript. It also said that the authors were employees of the United States Government and that the submitted work was performed as part of their official duties.

The paper described the management of 138 Gustillo Type IIIB and C tibial fractures in soldiers injured in Iraq. It was a retrospective study with some randomisation of these patients into two groups, one of which received bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) as part of the management and the other did not. The authors reported a significantly higher union rate in the group treated with rhBMP-2 (92% vs 76%). There was also a higher rate of further surgery required in the patients who did not receive BMP. This seemed to our reviewers to be an excellent study involving a large number of severe open tibial fractures investigated with appropriate methodology and reported satisfactorily. It was stated in the paper that appropriate ethical approval had been obtained and that each patient had provided informed consent. The reviewers suggested relatively minor modifications with some clarification, including further details with regard to those patients who were lost to follow-up and the technique used for bone grafting. It was also requested that some details of those patients who had undergone amputation be included along with further details about the management of the associated injuries of the soft tissue. The corresponding author then sent a revised manuscript with a covering letter indicating, for instance, that several hundred soldiers had sustained a traumatic amputation during the period of study, but that this was not the purpose of the manuscript and that none of the patients described in this paper had required an amputation. Some further information was also provided indicating that there were 51 pedicle muscle flaps and five fasciocutaneous flaps in this series which were all successful.

The paper was Accepted on the 18th April 2008. It was extensively rewritten by an associate editor and further corrected by me. Subsequently, as is routine practice, galleys were returned to the corresponding author and further minor corrections made during June 2008. The paper was published in the August edition of the Journal. It clearly seemed to represent a major contribution to the treatment of these severe complicated fractures which are difficult to manage and usually require several surgical procedures, careful wound management and extensive rehabilitation.

Shortly after the paper was published we received correspondence from one of the persons identified as a co-author indicating that the alleged co-authors had not seen the manuscript prior to publication and that they had not signed the letter of transmittal. It was further disclosed that much of the paper was essentially false.

Appropriate representations were made to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington DC, the alleged source of the paper, even though Dr Kuklo had retired from the US Army and left Walter Reed well before his paper was submitted for publication. A local investigation was instigated and we received further correspondence dated 6 November 2008 including the following paragraph:

“The results of the investigation establish that Dr Timothy R Kuklo did not submit the article through the Office of Clinical Investigations or the Public Affairs office, as required by Army regulations, before he submitted the article to your publication; that the signatures of the supposed co-authors of the article were, in fact, forged; that Dr Kuklo acted without any involvement of personnel at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center; and that the article was in no way vetted through Walter Reed’s Publication process before publication. As you are aware, once the article was reviewed by the purported co-authors of the article, a number of serious questions were raised regarding the validity of the information and the conclusions made in the article”.

Under these circumstances the paper published by this Journal has been formally withdrawn from the scientific literature and Dr Kuklo banned from submitting further papers to this Journal.

James Scott, MA, FRCS, Editor

Other Dr Kuklo posts:

Million Dollar Baby

June 16. 2009

May 30, 2009

Dr Kuklo leave of absence!

May 22, 2009

May 20, 2009

May 18, 2009

May 17, 2009 Dr Riew first critiqued

May 15, 2009

May 14, 2009

May 13, 2009

comments and information to Kirstein@sxu.edu

Dr Timothy Kuklo, as has been previously reported, has had an article retracted from publication due to its falsification of research and falsely claiming joint authorship by forging the signatures of four non-participatory colleagues.

While an army surgeon stationed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Dr Kuklo was an emerging star in medical medicine. He rose to the rank of colonel and received numerous awards for his medical achievements during his tenure at Walter Reed.

Colonel Kuklo’s [ret] first award while an army surgeon at Walter Reed contained the citation as “best exemplifies commitment to patients…true sense of loyalty..to his fellow soldiers.” The second award as a physician at Walter Reed cited his wondrous qualities of “best exemplif[ying]…scholarship and dignity”:

1999: Major General Lewis A. Mologne Award, Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Presented to the physician in-training who best exemplifies commitment to patients and a true sense of loyalty to his country, the U.S. Army and his fellow soldiers.

2002: Lieutenant General Claire L. Chennault Award, Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Presented to the Staff Physician who best exemplifies teaching excellence, professional medical expertise, leadership, scholarship and dignity.

Dr Kuklo received a third award from the Department of the Army:

Army “A” Designator - Awarded to physicians and surgeons who are nationally recognized for academic, clinical and surgical expertise, 2005

Colonel Kuklo’s fourth award contained a British honorific-sounding title:

Order of Military Medical Merit - For exemplary contribution to the United States Medical Department, and the dedicated application of talent, effort and spirit, 2006.

It probably should include those who defame the concept such as Colonel Kuklo.

While these numerous awards were conferred prior to his execrable, academic misconduct, it is remarkable that a decorated army officer would comport himself with such ignominy. Honours can be revoked. It happens frequently and perhaps Walter Reed Army Medical Center and other sponsors might consider the revocation of these awards to at least reestablish some linkage between perception and reality. The reality is Colonel Kuklo was a virtual Medtronic-corporation salesperson who was pursuing profit over loyalty to sick soldiers devastated by wounds.

This story was initially reported by the New York Times , which received leaked information probably by a person of conscience at Walter Reed, and subsequently by the St Louis Post-Dispatch. The latter, as has been reported, contained a defence of Dr Kuklo by his esteemed colleague Dr K Daniel Riew. The defence ranged from vouching for the former colonel’s integrity, scholarship and even possibly excusing the forging of signatures. While Dr Riew conceded he did not know the full circumstances of the forgeries of four other SOLDIERS as putative authors or whether oral permission had been granted–it had not–he certainly implied that Dr Kuklo had done no wrong. I think Dr Riew should have explicitly indicated that he and Dr Kuklo had collaborated for many years on research projects and that he could not be objective in his assessment of Dr Kuklo.

One could argue that Dr Riew was serving as an ersatz character witness but upon examination, I am producing many specific items of collaboration that bring into question the degree of objectivity that Dr Riew lent to the Post’s article. Dr Riew is entitled to his opinion and I am not questioning that right nor his impressive credentials as a physician. It is, however, not unreasonable to question whether any prior research on Dr Kuklo’s lengthy resume was also falsified particularly when in the employ as a consultant for Medtronic.  I am, however, alleging Dr Riew’s objectivity in making his supportive statements was compromised by their prior association when all available evidence suggests that Dr Kuklo disgraced himself, the Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine and the medical profession in general.

It is noteworthy that Dr Riew and Dr Kuklo had professionally collaborated on at least seven published research projects dating back to 2002, several years prior to the colonel’s tenured appointment began in 2006–but presumably while a fellow–at the Washington University School of Medicine.

There are three book chapters that Drs Kuklo and Riew et al. wrote with Dr Riew as the lead investigator:

Riew KD, Kuklo TR, Lenke LG. Chapter 48: Halo and Cervical Traction. Spinal Deformities: The Comprehensive Text. Thieme, New York, NY, 2003. Editor Dewald

Riew KD, Kuklo TR. Chapter 49: Surgical Approaches to the Cervical Spine. Spinal Deformities: The Comprehensive Text. Thieme, New York, NY, 2003. Editor Dewald

Riew KD, Kuklo TR. Chapter 51: Cervical Decompression. Spinal Deformities: The Comprehensive Text. Thieme, New York, NY, 2003. Editor Dewald.

I have been able to identify four articles on which Dr Kuklo and Dr Riew collaborated:
#
Lehman RA, Dmitriev AE, Helgeson MD, Sasso RC, Kuklo TR, Riew KD. Salvage of C2 pedicle and pars screws using the intralaminar technique. Spine 2008; 33(9):960-965.
#
Kuklo TR, Riew KD, Orchowski JR, Won DS, Schroeder TM, Gilula LA. Management of Recalcitrant Osteoarthritis of the Atlanto-Axial Joint. Orthopedics 2006;29(7):633-8.
#
Lehman RA Jr, Kuklo TR, Freedman BA, Cowart JR, Mense MG, Riew KD.The effect of alendronate sodium on spinal fusion: a rabbit model. Spine J. 2004 Jan-Feb;4(1):36-43.
#
Graham EJ, Kuklo TR, Kyriakos M, Rubin DA, Riew KD. Invasive pigmented villonodular synovitis of the atlantoaxial joint: a case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Oct;84-A(10):1856-60. No abstract available.

Colonel Kuklo published an article with falsified research and fake co-authors: “Recombinant human morphogenetic protein-2 for type grade III open segmental tibial fractures from combat injuries in Iraq,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. Clearly under the spell as a peddler for Medtronic’s Infuse bone-growth product, the colonel was inventing his conclusions to lie about the supposed 92% efficacy of the protein-product  in reestablishing bone growth in the smashed legs of Iraq War W.I.A. He made up data; he claimed to have patients that were a ghost population.

The article was published in August 2008 and then retracted by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery in March 2009. It is arguable that in those seven months, other orthopaedic surgeons or affiliated health professionals were influenced by the article and incorporated the product in their treatment of various fractures and other muscular-skeletal disorders that required bone restoration. A doctor’s primary mission is to do heal and do no harm. Dr Kuklo may have maliciously harmed soldiers in presenting illusory medical evidence that may have resulted in the WRONG treatment or less efficacious intervention on behalf of a patient.

Kirstein Blog other Articles:

June 16. 2009

May 30, 2009

Dr Kuklo is on leave of absence!

May 22, 2009

May 20, 2009

May 18, 2009

May 17, 2009

May 15, 2009

May 14, 2009

May 13, 2009

comments and information to Kirstein@sxu.edu

Dr Timothy Kuklo has had an article that was withdrawn from publication and has allegedly falsified his research and forged four signatures of:  “A. T. Groth,”  “R. C. Anderson,”  “H. M. Frisch” and “R. B. Islinger” as phantasmagorical co-investigators of this study on Infuse, a Medtronic bone-growth product in lower-limb restoration. While this article was based on illusory clinical observations during his tenure at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, it was submitted and published during his tenure as associate professor of orthopaedic surgery at the Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine.

It is now confirmed that Dr Kuklo began his appointment at Washington University in St Louis on August 15, 2006 and received tenure on October 6, 2006. Such a narrow time frame between appointment and the granting of tenure is striking in that it is rather uncommon outside of medicine. For the vast majority of tenured faculty, they are probationary for six years, are granted or denied tenure at the end of that year and are either fired or receive continuous tenure at the beginning of their eighth year of service.

Certainly, it is not uncommon for a university to grant tenure simultaneously with an appointment when the individual is of senior rank and is an established figure in one’s field. While admittedly Dr Kuklo had considerable experience, a medical school should at least provide a longer probationary period to insure the viability of the appointment. Dr Kuklo was not promoted with tenure, the more common occurrence even on medical school faculties, but essentially was given tenure as a component of his initial appointment.

The purpose of the probationary period of six years before an up or out decision is made is clear: It gives the institution adequate time to assess a candidate’s scholarship, teaching and service and affords the academician a reasonable period to establish the appropriate credentials to undergo a comprehensive summative review of her performance.

In 2006, the year of Dr Kuklo’s appointment to the medical school, three physicians arrived WITH virtual tenure with the gap between appointment and receiving tenure constituting a few months.  Dr Evan D. Kharasch arrived as professor of anesthesiology and received tenure five months into his appointment. Dr George A. Macones was also granted full professor rank in obstetrics and gynecology and received tenure six months after his arrival. Dr Kuklo, an associate professor, was the only one not granted a full professorship and yet received tenure only fifty-two days after his arrival on the St Louis campus.

One may assume that a medical school would be judicious, unless there is a palpable shortage, in conferring tenure simultaneously with an initial appointment only to those senior physicians who have proven based on distinguished career service that they should be granted a virtual lifetime appointment. However tenure may be revoked for a variety of reasons.

The classic document on tenure is the American Association of University Professors 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. One of the provisions for the revocation of continuous tenure is moral turpitude. While never defined like pornography, one knows it when one sees it. The falsification of research, the faking of signatures to create the impression of multiple authorship, the potential lethality that dishonest medical research could cause patients and eviscerate public health would certainly rise to the level of moral turpitude.

I think Dr Kuklo was smitten by greed. He was on the payroll of Medtronic and wanted to sell their product Infuse to ingratiate himself to his pharmaceutical masters. He faked the efficacy of Infuse in the treatment of Iraq War wounded in action by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and other causes in order to peddle a product. His article, as has been reported, was withdrawn by the British-based The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and he is forbidden from submitting any additional research to the journal. I doubt if any other reputable medical journal would accept an article for publication from Dr Kuklo.

As the A.A.U.P. has written in its 1999 Statement on Academic Freedom in the Medical School.

“The modern medical school has many of the attributes of a complex, market-driven health care system with professors often acting as entrepreneurs in research and in patient care. It is marked by conflicting roles and responsibilities, both academic and nonacademic, for faculty members and administrators alike.”

There needs to be a full inquiry, if one has not already been initiated, by the Washington University School of Medicine. A committee of faculty must independently assess the circumstances around this scandal. Dr Kuklo should, if he has not done so, hire an attorney with a specialty in employment law and in particular educational litigation to represent him. There are several in Illinois where I serve as vice president of the A.A.U.P. but they probably cannot practice in Missouri.

If Washington University does not take action then Dr Kuklo should be investigated by the appropriate licensing agency and a decision made whether his licence to practice medicine should be rescinded. I think such a process of determination must be implemented independently of the university’s actions or non-actions. Certainly the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, where Dr Kuklo received his medical degree in 1990, could upon examination revoke his degree of doctor of medicine.

In other articles I have disclosed significant family and personal connections to Washington University. Today I add more. I was born in a Washington University affiliated hospital and my father, who I have indicated served on the medical school faculty for over thirty years, died in a Washington University hospital. I went to day camp at the university and lived a few blocks from campus in University City. I played frisbee as a kid in the parking lot just west of Skinker and went to St Lous Symphony outdoor concerts during the summer. I protested against the war in Vietnam at Wash U and organised their student volunteers to support Eugene McCarthy’s presidential run. And now this? A possibly criminal physician who would dare fake research that could harm severely another human being in desperate need of efficacious lower-limb treatment. It is absolutely devastating and demoralising that this is happening and the silence of Washington University is deafening.

Other articles on Dr Kuklo.

Dr Kuklo placed on leave of absence!

May 22, 2009

May 20, 2009

May 18, 2009

May 17, 2009

May 15, 2009

May 14, 2009

May 13, 2009

Comments: kirstein@sxu.edu

The St Louis Post-Dispatch is reporting that various colleagues and even the spokesperson for Washington University School of Medicine are circling the wagons and defending Dr Timothy R. Kuklo, an associate professor of orthopaedic surgery. Dr Kuklo had an article retracted after publication due to falsification of research evidence on the efficacy of Infuse in lower-limb restoration and claiming falsely joint authorship with other researchers. Dr. Kuklo faked the signatures of four other researches in asserting it was a quadripartite research effort.

Ms Westerhouse on left with glass of chardonnay.

Spokeswoman Joni Westerhouse, according to the Post-Dispatch, stated that Dr Kuklo’s research on the Medtronic-corporation product was conducted before he became an associate professor in August 2006. However facts are facts: The article was submitted for publication in October 2007. The article was accepted for publication in April 2008. The article was published in August 2008 in the London-based  The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery some two years AFTER his appointment in the Washington University School of Medicine.

The Hippocratic Oath:

The fact that the research on Iraq War soldiers took place at Walter Reed Army Medical Center prior to his arrival on the St. Louis campus is immaterial. The submission of the piece and its publication while a faculty member at Washington University in St Louis is beyond dispute. Dr Kuklo, a graduate of West Point, was a member of the faculty at the time of the article’s submission and publication that removes any defence of claiming non-institutional involvement in this matter.

Dr Dan Riew, the Mildred B. Simon Distinguished Professor and Chief of Cervical Spine Surgery in the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, alleged that his colleague’s forging signatures of four phantom co-authors may have been to subsequent to oral authorisation. Astonishingly, Dr Riew claimed that when a researcher is without a fax machine or is abroad, the forging of signatures may be the only alternative. How about an email attachment form that is returned with an online signature! I would hope Dr Riew is aware of a basic rule of research that is taught to high-school seniors: Neither claim work that is not your own nor give credit of work to others when they are not entitled much less implicate them in falsified medical research. Well Dr Kuklo apparently only forged four signatures of authorship and not his own.

The Strange World of Dr Riew

While I am not a physician but a Ph.D., I have had considerable experience in judging and commenting on academic misconduct cases and have never heard of a professional organisation allowing an author of an article to claim joint authorship with others without their consent. In fact one of the physicians, Lt. Col. Romney C. Andersen, that Dr Kuklo claimed as a fellow submitter complained to his superiors and JBJS that he was neither aware of the article nor asked to assume joint ownership of the research project.

I am frequently asked to “endorse” works in which I submit a brief laudatory statement about the monograph that appears either on the published work or in a promotional flier. I have a hunch that Dr. Kuklo, however bizarrely, was looking for endorsers of his work, and felt that faking joint authorship with other investigators would achieve that end. Yet I find it incomprehensible that a board certified physician with both an M.D. and J.D. degree could believe that such an action could escape scrutiny. Of course, we do not know Dr. Kuklo’s side of this issue but I hope he will be asked: “How is it possible that you could claim joint authorship with other physicians without their prior knowledge? Is it true you forged their signatures and submitted the article under false pretenses as claimed by one of the faux investigators? Were you aware that patients and their physicians might be falsely influenced in using bone-growth intervention that is not proven to be superior to other treatment? Are you aware that your research has consequences for the wellness of potential patients?” Dr Riew to the contrary, I find it utterly at variance with rationality that such an action could be justified.

My father, who taught at the Washington University School of Medicine for some thirty years, would never allow such an action to occur. He co-authored with Michael Somogyi, the senior researcher, a classic transformative article on treating diabetes mellitus: “Insulin as a cause of extreme hyperglycemia and instability,” Bulletin of the St Louis Medical  Society 32:498-503, 1938. I know having been taught that honour and integrity and ethical behaviour are supreme qualities of human conduct, that my father and none of his colleagues at Wash U would engage in the type of egregious and possibly illegal practice alleged to have been committed by Dr Timothy R. Kuklo.

Other posts on Doctor Timothy R. Kuklo:

Million Dollar Baby June 18, 2009

June 16, 2009

May 30, 2009

Dr Kuklo “takes” leave of absence!

May 22, 2009

May 20, 2009

May 18, 2009

May 17, 2009

May 15, 2009

May 14, 2009

May 13, 2009

The New York Times has reported that a former physician at Walter Reed Army Medical Center,  Dr. Timothy R. Kuklo, falsified information, faked an article’s co-authorship by forging the names of other authors and basically sold out to the Minneapolis-based pharmaceutical giant Medtronic Inc. He claimed a bone-growth product, Infuse, had over 90% efficacy on Iraq War veterans with severe lower-limb damage.

The article was published in August 2008 and then withdrawn by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery in March 2009. The article had an exciting title which probably explains its relative obscurity–until now: “Recombinant human morphogenetic protein-2 for type grade III open segmental tibial fractures from combat injuries in Iraq.”

The minefields of corporate-funded research are evident. Paid researchers are frequently investigating the efficacy of a product which its manufacturer has funded. The corruption of academic medicine is likely to increase as the principal source of research funding comes from big pharma using its minions to push its products under the guise of science.

If Dr Kuklo, who is also a Georgetown University educated attorney with presumably some knowledge of the law, committed these acts it would constitute scholarly misconduct that would in my opinion merit dismissal. He is currently an associate professor in the distinguished Washington University School of Medicine and is a graduate of the University of Connecticut medical school.

However, the doctor must be given the rights afforded by the American Association of University Professors. He is entitled to have a faculty committee of his peers examine his work beyond those who have already investigated the article.

Any Washington University committee must be transparent and share all findings with the professor as well as provide him with all appropriate means of response.

If dismissed by the medical school, he need not be given severance or a year’s notice whether tenured or not because this would probably fall under the category of moral turpitude.

I have examined the A.A.U.P. document  “Academic Freedom in the Medical School,” and have found nothing that would justify Dr. Kuklo’s alleged egregious misconduct under the rubric of academic freedom.

We do not know what Washington University has done to explore this potential career-ending research misconduct incident. Two months later, Dr. Kuklo still appears on the university website and even lauded as one of its stars. Washington University, one of the nation’s premier institutions of higher learning, brags about this erstwile army surgeon as one of the nation’s Best Doctors. I think that claim about this orthopaedic surgeon should be removed, despite its provenance, pending the outcome of this most disturbing situation. Dr Kuklo graduated from West Point but apparently was not taught the virtues of honour, decency and compassion. To think this faculty member of a medical school would used combat-injured soldiers to falsify data to advance his career while being paid is beyond belief. I wonder if his treatment of his patients and the notes that he wrote were falsified as well in leading to early discharges or even misleading evaluation of a patient’s condition.

Full Disclosure: I attended Washington University while a student at Boston University, my sister received her B.A. from Washington University and my father was a clinical professor of internal medicine in private practice at the medical school for over thirty years.

Kirstein Blog Posts on Colonel Kuklo Scandal:

June 18, 2009 Million Dollar Baby

June 16. 2009

May 30, 2009

Dr Kuklo leave of absence!

May 22, 2009

May 20, 2009

May 18, 2009

May 17, 2009 Dr Riew first critiqued

May 15, 2009

May 14, 2009

May 13, 2009

comments and information to Kirstein@sxu.edu

America tortures and it won’t punish the perpetrators. Israel commits war crimes and the U.S. is silent. Moving toward peace and justice requires more than handshakes and calming speech although those are not immaterial. Peace and justice requires courage in moving against entrenched interests that use “terrorism” and “Islamofascist” terms to obscure their brutal, racist, savage destruction of a darker skinned people that had its country dispossessed and hijacked for NO logical reason in 1948.

May 5, 2009

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - A U.N. inquiry accused Israel on Tuesday of gross negligence and recklessness in attacks on U.N. property in the Gaza strip during fighting between the Jewish state and Palestinian militants in January.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who appointed the four-person inquiry board in February, said he would seek compensation for damage put at more than $11 million but would not follow the panel’s call for further investigations.

Israeli officials rejected the report as one-sided, saying it ignored the fact that Israel was fighting a war against a “terrorist” organization — the militant group Hamas.

Israel’s armed forces conducted their own investigation into the conduct of the December-January Gaza campaign and said last month it had found no serious misconduct by troops, who had acted within international law.

Israel launched the campaign to try to halt Palestinian rocket fire from the Hamas-controlled strip. More than 1,000 Palestinians were killed but the sides differ over how many were combatants. Israel lost 10 soldiers and three civilians.

The U.N. inquiry led by Briton Ian Martin, a former head of rights group Amnesty International who later joined the United Nations, investigated nine incidents of damage to U.N. property and faulted Israel in seven of them. It blamed Hamas in one case and could not establish responsibility in another.

In several cases, the report found Israel had “breached the inviolability of United Nations premises,” had not respected U.N. immunity and was responsible for deaths and injuries.

In a January 15 incident, the shelling of the Gaza compound of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) with high explosive and white phosphorus, an incendiary substance, “was grossly negligent, amounting to recklessness,” it said. Three people were injured.

PURSUE REPARATIONS

The panel also found that Israeli forces had failed to meet their responsibilities to protect U.N. personnel and civilians when they fired mortar shells on January 6 that landed near an UNRWA school in Jabalia where Palestinians were sheltering.

Seven people were wounded inside the school, but an estimated 30-40 people were killed nearby.

In these and other incidents, Israel said its forces were responding to Palestinian fire.

But the U.N. report said allegations that militants had fired from within U.N. premises “were untrue, continued to be made after it ought to have been known that they were untrue, and were not adequately withdrawn and publicly regretted.”

In 11 recommendations, the panel said the U.N. should seek that acknowledgment and should pursue reparations for damage caused. It also called for an impartial inquiry of alleged violations of international law by Israel in Gaza and by Palestinian militants who rocketed southern Israel.

The panel’s report emerged from a 27-page summary sent by Ban to members of the U.N. Security Council and to Israel. Ban said the full 184-page report was being kept secret because information in it could prejudice U.N. security.

In a letter accompanying the summary, Ban said he was “carefully reviewing these recommendations with a view to determining what course of action, if any, I should take.” But he said he did not plan any further inquiry.

Ban told a news conference, however: “I intend to seek reparation of loss or damage incurred by the U.N.” Apart from losses of some $29,000 caused by Palestinian rocket fire at a U.N. warehouse, the report ascribed all the damage to Israel.

Israel’s deputy U.N. ambassador, Daniel Carmon, called the report one-sided and unfair. “We were really shocked to see a report where the board is limiting itself to the facts of the damages only, ignoring the context, ignoring that there is war against terrorism,” he told Reuters.

Carmon called the panel’s recommendations “unacceptable,” but welcomed Ban’s letter which he said showed the U.N. chief was “somehow distancing himself from the board’s report.”

(Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

This is a YouTube video of excerpts from a Gaza Colonisation Panel that I served on in Chicago on February 26, 2009. This is the full text of my statement on the Israeli assault on defenceless Gaza.

 
Sister Christian Molidor, R.S.M., discussed the experience of living in the West Bank and Jerusalem. SXU Professor Peter N. Kirstein, Ph.D., advocated reassessment of the American-Israel bilateral relationship. Shaun Harkin, an organizer with the Immigrants’ Rights Coalition and the Chicago Antiwar Coalition, writer, International Socialist Review, addressed connections between the experience of the Palestinians and local marginalized communities.

For more information about Saint Xavier’s Middle Eastern Studies program:
http://www.sxu.edu/Academic/Liberal/Middle_Eastern_Studies/ default.asp

Clark University which was looking down a barrel of shame has reversed itself and is allowing Dr Finkelstein to speak as a guest of Students for Palestinian Rights on Monday, April 27. President John Bassett’s Clark’s shameless, pusillanimous revocation of a speaking engagement had barred him recently due to the concern about hurting feelings of those who want to silence critics of Israel and genocide in Gaza and forced population removals in the West Bank. Finkelstein is to be speak on the carnage and violation of the laws of war in besieged Gaza. Bassett’s reversal should be acknowledged and noted.

Perhaps Clark’s reversal was reaction to the protest by ACLU and concerned scholars who are resisting the taboo of discourse concerning the State of Israel. This taboo is a major threat to academic freedom, human rights and critical thinking. It is a cancer that is spreading throughout academe and it must be challenged, defeated and dishonoured for what it is–authoritarian, bullying censorship seeking an undemocratic ideological monopoly of higher education in the United States. There are other ideological assaults on academic freedom besides those of the Israel Lobby but prudence dictates a robust challenge to any and all actions intended to restrict academic freedom.

Those of you in the Worcester, Mass. area go to the lecture and support the persecuted professor’s right to speak. Hopefully, DePaul University that dishonoured itself and frankly all of higher education in denying Dr Finklestein and Mehrene Larudee tenure, will take notice that one institution, Clark U., has ultimately reversed a draconian effort to censor the prophetic wisdom of Dr Finkelstein.

From: Committee to Defend Academic Freedom at UCSB
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY

Dear colleagues,

UCSB has become the latest front in the war against Academic Freedom. Professor William I. Robinson, a Sociology and Global Studies professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, has been attacked by the Anti-Defamation League and two of his former students. In January of this year, he forwarded an email condemning the Israeli attacks on Gaza. The email contained an editorial by a Jewish journalist condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza as well as juxtaposed images of Nazi atrocities with congruent images of Israeli atrocities against Palestinians. The email was an optional read for students, intended to spark conversation by relating contemporary events to conceptual ideas discussed in class.

 
One week later, the ADL wrote him a letter charging him with anti- Semitism and sundry violations of the Faculty Code of Conduct (none of which were coherent claims). Another week passed, and the Academic Senate Charges Officer then notified him that two of the students in the class to which he circulated the email had filed complaints against him

The complaints are that 1) critique of Israel is evidence of anti- Semitism and 2) the Israeli-Palestinian issue should not be discussed in a class on Globalization.

 
This case has already escalated way too far. Throughout the process, the Charges Officer violated several elements of the charges procedure, shirked his responsibilities, and ultimately acted as a co-complainant by fabricating charges that were not raised by the students. The charges have reached the Committee on Committees, which is now in the process of convening an ad hoc Charges Committee to assess the complaints against Professor Robinson
Based on patently absurd and malicious claims, the charges should have been dismissed out of hand from the beginning.

Further consideration of the charges by the Academic Senate serves only to sanction politically-motivated attacks on academic freedom. The longer this case is pursued, the worse its chilling effect; it will spread fear among those who wish to present controversial and critical subjects. Even though the original complaint is regarding Israel/Palestine, the rights at stake extend beyond this specific topic. Academic freedom is a right that enables scholars to express diverse perspectives over contentious topics, free from the intimidation of political repression campaigns.

If the case against Professor Robinson continues to go forward, it will lead down a slippery slope that may expose academics to repression tactics for addressing controversial issues such as stem cell research, evolution, feminism, LGBT rights, etc. It is incumbent upon members of the UCSB campus and the broader academy to roundly oppose this silencing campaign.

 
This is an obvious attack on Professor Robinson”s academic freedom, one that ominously recalls similar campaigns against other critics of Israel across the nation. This is part of a broader campaign to automatically vilify and attack any and all critiques of Israel’s policies and practices through unfounded use of the term “anti-Semitic.” A critique of the Israeli state, its policies, and the leaders responsible is not and should not be considered an affront to Jewish people as a collective, the Jewish religion, or Jewish heritage.

In fact, conflating the state of Israel with the Jewish people essentializes the assorted political opinions of a diverse religious group by reducing them to the set of policies espoused by the prevailing regime.
We need your help! Please scroll below and follow the instructions to 1) email the UCSB Chancellor and responsible authorities on campus to express your outrage and register your protest, and 2) sign the petition
Please visit our website for more information on the case, including continuing updates, at: http://sb4af.wordpress.com

If you wish to contact the student campaign, please email: cdaf.ucsb@gmail.com

Thank you for your time, Committee to Defend Academic Freedom at UC Santa Barbara

 ***

Send an Email: The e-mail should be addressed to UCSB Chancellor Henry Yang and cc’d to the following faculty and administrators involved in the case. Please copy and paste the addresses

Cary sent this to me via e-mail

Feel free to make any use of the following:

DuPage’s new policy includes many unproblematic elements, but it also incorporates numerous poison pills that can easily be used to undermine academic freedom. People, for example, certainly deserve respect, but not all ideas do. It is not the business of a university to declare that certain questions should be considered “unsettled.” It is the job of academic disciplines to decide such matters for themselves. Thus it is not “ideological indoctrination” to expect that students master the theory of evolution or the idea that gender’s meanings are socially constructed. Nor is it the institution’s right to [determine] what matters count as “controversial” and what issues merit “unbiased” treatment. Few things, moreover, are as stifling to free inquiry as a demand that invited speakers represent a balanced spectrum of opinion. Even the requirement that faculty show “appropriate restraint” in arguing a position, seemingly reasonable on the surface, in fact undermines the tremendous educational benefit that can be gained from well informed but passionate advocacy. This policy is a disaster for education in a democratic society.

Cary Nelson

President American Association of University Professorsa

This is all too common when universities cancel events to preserve the public relations’ image of an institution. President  John Bassett is just the latest example of an execrable administrator who eagerly sacrifices academic excellence and the pursuit of truth to pacify the thought police of the Israel Lobby and other groups who support an Israel Can Do No Wrong Policy. President Bassett is a disgrace to academia, a disgrace to free inquiry, an enemy of critical thinking, a violator of A.A.U.P. principles on outside speakers and a coward who should resign and accept the opprobrium of enlightened people everywhere. The lesson of DePaul’s inquisition against Professors Finkelstein and Mehrene Larudee is not more repression but less and not more refusal to entertain disparate ideas but less. Administrators generally cannot be trusted to enforce and lead on issues of academic freedom and intellectual diversity. Many have to be watched, prodded, and driven from office by faculty and students in order to preserve the academic viability of an institution. NOTE: “Bassett” is frequently misspelled “Basset” as seen in the press and on other venues engaged with this travesty. I went to the Clark University website and the president’s surname is “Bassett.”

John Bassett (President, Clark University) wearing the tuxedo!

Clark University President John Bassett Cancels Finkelstein

04.09.2009 | Original
Finkelstein comments: Part of the Clark University-Boston Globe disinformation campaign is the pretense that I was scheduled to speak on the Nazi holocaust. In fact I was scheduled to speak on the Gaza massacre. Isn’t it too perfect that Clark was using The Holocaust as a pretext to silence criticism of Israel?

The Scarlet – “Letters To The Editor”

04.09.2009 | The Scarlet
Bassett Makes Statement:

To the Editor: As some members of the campus community know, I have told the students involved with the Clark University Students for Palestinian Rights (CUSPR) that a planned talk by Professor Norman Finkelstein will not take place this semester. The University remains committed to inviting a wide range of speakers to encourage diversity of opinions on controversial topics. My decision was predicated on its untimely and unfortunate scheduling. The University began planning for the First International Graduate Students’ Conference on Holocaust and Genocide Studies a year ago. While I do not believe that the students who invited Mr. Finkelstein to campus intended it as an affront to those planning the conference, in the eyes of many in the Clark community and our invited guests, it seems to be just that. It is possible that our understanding of the Middle East conflicts would be enriched by conversations with Professor Finkelstein. It is my judgement, however, that having Professor Finkelstein speak on the same evening as our planned conference would only invite controversy and not dialogue or understanding. By this letter, copied also to the Chair of the Faculty and the President of Student Government, I am asking the campus community — faculty, staff, and students — to engage in dialogues about the right breadth at Clark for visiting speakers on controversial topics, about related matters of scheduling as raised in this case, and about this particular case. I will consult with faculty, staff, and students right after Fall Break in early October and report back to The Scarlet on those discussions. After those discussions have taken place, I will be happy to discuss with interested students the appropriateness of an invitation to Mr. Finkelstein.

If you would like to express your opinion to President Bassett on his decision to cancel my lecture, you can reach him here:

presidentsoffice[at]clarku.edu, or through Clark University President’s Office contact page.

Please forward your letter to Normangf[at]hotmail.com for posting on this website.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Weighs In on Clark Cancellation

04.10.2009 | ACLU (pdf)

American Association of University Professors  ILLINOIS 2009 SPRING CONFERENCE

2009 SPRING CONFERENCE AT ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY

Featured Speaker: GARY RHOADES, GENERAL SECRETARY OF AAUP

Following Gary Rhoades, a panel discussion on the topic of transparency in academia, including tenure decisions, governance, and policy. Panelists will represent a variety of higher education institutions in the Chicago area.

The AAUP IL business meeting will follow the panel discussion.
Elections for council officers and members will take place.

Roosevelt University is conveniently located at 18 S. Michigan Ave, close to Millenium Park and a few blocks from the ‘El’, Metra trains, and bus station.

The conference will take place on the 3rd floor Commons Room.

Conference will begin at 1:30 sharp. April 18!

PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO YOUR COLLEAGUES

For information call Lee Maltby at 773-878-3978, or email lmaltby@staugustine.edu
Lee Maltby, Secretary, AAUP-IL http://www.ILAAUP.ORG

This message was sent on behalf of the Illinois State Conference by the national AAUP office.

Cary Nelson, president of A.A.U.P., has called for the reinstatement of Professor Ward Churchill in a one-paragraph blog post in the New York Times. Why A.A.U.P. has chosen to wait after two years of an obvious persecution of a professor and to use a brief blog post to declare this policy is somewhat disappointing. Yet hopefully we will see a robust A.A.U.P. defence of  Ward’s academic freedom and actively engage this matter publicly in its own media and internal Committee A response and recognise that to be silent is to lie. I am hopeful this announcement represents official A.A.U.P. policy which subsequently precipitates robust action:

I agree with Professor Fish that the disputes over Ward Churchill’s work should have remained in traditional scholarly venues and not been made the subject of disciplinary hearings. Ward Churchill should be reinstated as a faculty member at the University of Colorado.

Cary Nelson
AAUP President

— Cary Nelson

Dr Nelson was responding to a surprising Stanley Fish op-ed that supported Mr Churchill’s reinstatement and condemned the “circus” that, under the cover of academic misconduct, expelled him in 2007 from the academy for his 9/11 progressive views. I also posted a blog response in the New York Times.

146. April 6, 2009 1:19 pm Link

Update: These are more details of the actual claimed space launch:

“The satellite is going round the earth along its elliptic orbit at the angle of inclination of 40.6 degrees at 490 km perigee and 1,426 km apogee. Its cycle is 104 minutes and 12 seconds.”

Whether the D.P.R.K. successfully achieved an actual space launch is a sideshow. I am unaware of any international law that prohibits a country from launching satellites, successfully or not, into Earth orbit. Certainly the Outer Space Treaty, the L.T.B.T. and N.P.T. do not preclude such activity. I find it ironic the nuclear-armed America denounces a satellite test but has not taken any action to cease its own “space” launches and other planetary ASAT activities. In fact N.A.S.A. is just another off budget Pentagon cash cow–an ersatz “Space Command” in which primarily military officers fly and engage in futile space colonisation.

It is the usual American empire asserting its rights of global pursuit of national security but demanding its adversaries not seek their own defence through military modernisation. If the United States were truly serious about acheiving a settlement of the Korean War, it would remove its roughly 35-40,000 troops along the D.M.Z. Will President Barack Hussein Obama, bring the troops home or will he persist in “containment” of the D.P.R.K. while giving lip-service to the six-party talks?

Most sources that are not anti-Asian are convinced the D.P.R.K. does not possess deployed nuclear weapons. They may have enriched enough isotopic Uranium 235 to manufacture fissile material for a bomb but it is questionable they have either weaponised much less deployed a nuclear weapon. They obviously do not have armed missiles; whether they have gravity bombs that can be sortied on an aging MIG is also very problematic.

——————————————————————————-

Kim Jong Il Observes Launch of Satellite Kwangmyongsong-2

Pyongyang, April 5 (KCNA) — General Secretary Kim Jong Il visited the General Satellite Control and Command Centre to watch the process of launching the experimental communications satellite Kwangmyongsong-2 on Sunday. He acquainted himself with the preparations made for the satellite launch.

After being briefed on the satellite launch, he observed the whole process of the satellite launch at the centre.

At 11:20 a.m. the satellite Kwangmyongsong-2, a shining product of self-reliance, soared into space by carrier rocket Unha-2. It was smoothly and accurately put into its orbit 9 minutes and 2 seconds after being completely separated from the carrier rocket.

Expressing great satisfaction over the fact that scientists and technicians of the DPRK successfully launched the satellite with their own wisdom and technology, he highly appreciated their feats and extended thanks to them.

It is a striking demonstration of the might of our Juche-oriented science and technology that our scientists and technicians developed both the multistage carrier rocket and the satellite with their own wisdom and technology 100 percent and accurately put the satellite into orbit at one go, he noted, repeatedly praising the patriotic devotion of the scientists and technicians who are playing a vanguard role in the drive to open the gate to a great prosperous and powerful nation.

Stressing the need to bring about a new turn in conquering outer space and making a peaceful use of it on the basis of the successful launch of the satellite Kwangmyongsong-2, he set forth the important tasks to be fulfilled to do so.

He met with the scientists and technicians who have contributed to the satellite launch by devoting all their wisdom and enthusiasm with ardent patriotism and warmly encouraged them before having a photograph taken with them.

He was accompanied by Secretary Jon Pyong Ho and First Vice-Department Director Ju Kyu Chang of the WPK Central Committee.

Unjustly persecuted professor Ward Churchill waves a dollar after a Denver jury sided with him in his civil suit against the University of Colorado over violation of academic freedom and First Amendment rights. (Paul Aiken, Daily Camera ); From Denver Post, April 3, 2009

While Roger Bowen, former General Secretary of A.A.U.P., can trash Professor Churchill in the Wall Street Journal and claim he does not merit academic freedom protection, an impartial jury argued he does. Dr Bowen in a disgraceful and unseemly letter, claimed Mr Churchill’s hiring and promotion up the various ranks was due to his status as a “provocateur.” Such a reckless, UNPROFESSIONAL charge is an insult to the various review committees that monitored the professor’s publications, teaching and service and is totally unsubstantiated by any evidence. And this calumny from a former General Secretary of the American Association of University Professors? How shameful and egregious.

I know the WSJ loves to print articles that savage and recklessly charge progressive professors. They wrote two editorials calling for my suspension and sanctions in 2002 and never even allowed me to respond. So the Bowens of this world, who were cashiered from A.A.U.P., now become the headhunters for the far right. Well, Dr Bowen, this courageous Colorado jury did not agree with you.

I have written for over a year and  a half that like myself, when I was suspended in 2002 for an anti-war e-mail, it was public rage over political ideology that was the primary reason for Churchill’s dismissal. Yes he did commit academic misconduct but such an airing of these issues would not have occurred had governors, right-wing press elites and pusillanimous university presidents not wanted “to fix the problem.” I do not know if Mr Churchill’s publishing transgressions merited firing; I suspect they did not but the lesson here is simple: When a university gangs up on an academic for unpopular and unconventional speech, and then removes him from a tenured position, it better make sure its own house is in order.

Looking forward, I hope Mr Churchill will return to C.U. as a tenured full professor in Ethnic Studies. If the university ignores this jury verdict, then hopefully it will be forced to restore the professor through other legal remedies. Since he was fired for his beliefs and not his research shortcomings, according to the jury decision, he must be allowed to return to teaching at the university beginning this fall.

$1 win for Churchill

Failing to protect Ward Churchill’s free speech will cost the University of Colorado - at least $1.

The former ethnic-studies professor won his civil case against CU on Thursday after a unanimous jury found he was fired in retaliation for his controversial essay about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

But the jury awarded Churchill only the paltry amount in damages, allowing both sides to claim some measure of victory in a four-year battle pitting free speech and tenure against the value of academic purity.

Churchill’s attorney, David Lane, lauded the jury’s decision as a victory for free speech.

“I can’t tell you how significant this is,” Lane said. “There are very few moments that give the First Amendment this kind of life.”

CU president Bruce Benson said the small monetary damages show how much the jury believed Churchill.

“While we respect the jury’s decision, we strongly disagree,” he said in a written statement. “It doesn’t change the fact that more than 20 of Ward Churchill’s faculty peers on three separate panels unanimously found he engaged in deliberate and repeated plagiarism, falsification and fabrication that fell below the minimum standards of professional conduct.”

Former Gov. Bill Owens, who may have started the whole affair with a scathing indictment of Churchill’s essay and a demand for his firing, said the verdict was not a victory for the professor.

“I think the $1 in damages accurately reflects the jury’s appreciation for Ward Churchill’s warm and endearing personality,” Owens said.

Further damages possible

Denver Chief District Judge Larry J. Naves will decide in a separate hearing whether the former Boulder professor can return to his job or receive “front pay” for future years he could have worked at CU.

Lane says he will file a motion to recover legal fees for hundreds of hours of work he and co-counsels Qusair Mohamedbhai and Robert Bruce put into the case - but he deferred questions about a dollar amount.

“We work cheap,” he said. Still, the bill, if assessed to CU, is likely to be well into seven figures.

Ken McConnellogue, a spokesman for CU, said the university is looking at all options regarding an appeal to the verdict, legal fees and Churchill’s reinstatement.

“We’ll cross that bridge if we get to it,” he said of allowing Churchill back on campus.

Lane said CU can’t retaliate against Churchill again by giving him a shoddy assignment on campus or a substandard position or he’ll sue again.

Churchill hugged his attorneys after the verdict was read. CU attorneys Patrick O’Rourke and Kari Hershey shook hands with Churchill and his attorneys before leaving the courtroom without making a statement.

Churchill briefly spoke outside the courtroom and said, “It took four years. It took a while. And it was quick, it was justice.”

CU “has been exposed for what it is,” Churchill said.

“It was found by a jury that I was wrongly fired,” he said. “They not only violated my rights, but my students’ rights and the community’s rights.”

Churchill said he was satisfied with a $1 judgment and said his case was not about money.

“Reinstatement, of course,” he said. “I did not ask for money. I asked for justice.”

Churchill thanked his family and his supporters and his lawyers. He also blasted his detractors, including KHOW 630 AM radio talk show hosts Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman and former Rocky Mountain News editorial page editor Vincent Carroll, now a Denver Post columnist, who Churchill said “tried to shape public consciousness in a false fashion.”

Churchill excused himself from the crush of news cameras and said he wanted to “get some silence and repose.”

About two hours before the verdict was read, jurors asked the judge questions that seemed to indicate one of them was holding out on how much money to award Churchill.

The jury of four women and two men declined to discuss their verdict, walking past reporters under escort from sheriff’s deputies.

“Little Eichmanns” reference

Churchill’s essay, “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens,” became national news in January 2005 as he was set to make a speech at Hamilton College in New York. A student found the essay, written on Sept. 12, 2001, and protested Churchill’s appearance.

Churchill said the speech was intended to criticize America’s economic and foreign policies. In the essay, he compared some of the victims in the World Trade Center attack to “little Eichmanns” after Nazi Adolf Eichmann, who engineered the destruction of the Jews in World War II.

Owens, several CU regents, and hosts of cable and talk radio shows all called for him to be fired from CU because of his comments.

CU launched an investigation to determine whether that essay was protected speech. Once Churchill was in the spotlight, allegations surfaced that he had committed plagiarism or academic misconduct in other writings, and another series of investigations was launched. A review of his work led to a vote by CU regents in 2007 that the tenured professor be fired.

CU counsel O’Rourke argued that the university fired Churchill solely because he had engaged in fabrication, falsification and plagiarism in some of his writings on American Indians. O’Rourke told the jury that Churchill’s termination had nothing to do with the 9/11 essay.

But Lane told the jury there is no way his client would have lost his job from CU had it not been for the “howling mob” at the university gates who wanted him gone because of the essay.

Felisa Cardona: 303-954-1219 or fcardona@denverpost.com Staff writer Lynn Bartels contributed to this report.

What’s next

A decision on the job. Denver Chief District Judge Larry J. Naves will decide whether Churchill can return to his job or receive “front pay” for future years he could have worked at CU.

A jocund Northeastern Illinois University Provost Lawrence P. Frank (r)

Dr Lawrence P. Frank, now provost  and vice president for academic affairs at N.E.I.U., was dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at St Xavier University where I teach. He left for the provost job at N.E.I.U. in Fall 2002. In Spring semester of 1996 during a job-search departmental vote, Dr Frank repeatedly raised the issue of age regarding a woman who had been brought to campus. Frankly I don’t think school deans should be voting within departments on a job search. That gives these folks TWO votes: one as an ersatz department member and then the exercise of power as a dean. Just arrogant and outrageous!!! Dr Frank insisted there were not enough young people in Arts and Sciences and was emphatic in wanting to hire a younger candidate than the woman. I aggressively addressed questions about the propriety, if not legality, of discussing this aspect of a candidate’s profile. He shrieked at me with vehemence and rage that I would make the charge of ageism. But that is what it was, pure and simple! I have never forgotten this incident and to this day churn at the thought of being rebuked in such an abusive and disrespectuful manner in front of my department colleagues, for daring to make an ethical and warranted challenge to an out-of-control, ageist administrator. I can assure you if I ever again encounter such administrative misconduct and egregious violations of civil rights law, I will use all appropriate means to engage such excess. I think Dr Frank should have been  reprimanded and fired from St Xavier for this single incident for palpable and irrefutable age discrimination in employment practices.

http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/no_free_speech.jpg

The following was sent to me by the distingusihed University of Texas Professor Dana Cloud.

Dear Supporters and Signers (and potential signers and supporters) of Justice for Loretta Capeheart petition. The petition is at
http://www.petitiononline.com/j4lc/petition.html.

I am attaching background information on this case for those unfamiliar with it.

Thank you all for your support and your continued commitment to free speech and academic freedom. As of today, we have 700 signatures, including those of prominent scholars Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. Please join them, if you have not, in signing the petition to support Loretta. Also, please forward this call far and wide as you see fit.

There is an emerging front in the struggle for academic freedom. Some university leaders are attacking outspoken faculty on the grounds that university employees have no free speech rights when it comes to criticizing their own institutions. This attack epitomizes Northeastern  Illinois University¹s harassment of justice studies professor Loretta Capeheart, who has been targeted by her administration for her outspokenness for workers¹ rights in a 2004 faculty strike, against the Iraq war, in defense of student protesters, and for increased representation of minority scholars at NEIU. In retaliation, she was denied merited awards and an appointment to chair of her department‹a position to which she was elected. NEIU Vice President Melvin Terrell publicly defamed Capeheart, accusing her without  grounds of stalking a student.

Capeheart is suing Terrell for defamation, alongside NEIU¹s President and Provost {Lawrence P. Frank} for retaliation and violation of her constitutional right to free speech. Incredibly, the administrators¹ response argues that Capeheart, as a state employee, may not sue the University or its officials, contravene their positions, question their conduct, or speak as a faculty member on matters of public concern. Their motion to dismiss the case states that clothed in her authority as a faculty member,² Capeheart criticized University policy, ³even going so far as to disagree with the stated positions of the Provost.² ³It is very middle ages,² Capehart said, ³like the lord vs. the serf.²

Unfortunately, the administration has frightening legal precedent, according to the AAUP.  The Supreme Court¹s 2006 decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos held that state employees are not afforded first amendment protection if they are speaking on subjects relevant to their professional duties; When UC Irvine professor Juan Hong angered University administrators by opposing the replacement of tenure-track faculty by term lecturers, he was denied a merit salary increase. The Court ruled against Hong, citing Garcetti.

However, there is some good news to report on Loretta’s case!  On March 2, 2009, Judge Blanche Manning, U.S. District Court Judge, Northern Illinois District agreed to hear Loretta¹s case despite the university¹s arguments that it was ³futile² for her to claim any right to free speech. Please see the judge¹s comments below.

There is still much to do to guarantee justice for Loretta and to defend our rights to free speech and academic freedom.  We are asking that you  continue to forward the link to the petition to others concerned with academic freedom and urge them to sign on to the petition.  A press conference will be called for the petition delivery to NEIU President Sharon Hahs in April. An announcement will be forthcoming.

Please sign at http://www.petitiononline.com/j4lc/petition.html , and
encourage others to do so.

Thanks again for your support.

Statement from Judge Manning:

“The defendants oppose the amendment on the basis that it would be futile. Specifically, they contend that the First Amendment protects only speech by public employees that addresses matters of public concern as opposed to matters involving their official duties. See Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 417 (2006) (³when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.²) The defendants contend that the speech at issue was not protected by the First Amendment because (i) it addressed university policy, (ii) occurred at university-sponsored events which Capeheart attended as a university employee, and (iii) concerned her official duties. However, as Capeheart argues, the speech also addressed matters of public concern such as discrimination and the ability of students to express anti-war views. At this juncture, without the benefit of a full record including details of Capeheart¹s speech and the nature of the events she attended, it would be premature to determine whether her speech was protected by the First Amendment. Accordingly, futility is not a basis for denying Capeheart¹s motion for leave to amend.” Judge Manning, 3-2-09

Dana L. Cloud Associate Professor Graduate Advisor, Director of Graduate Studies Department of Communication Studies University of Texas 1 University Station A1105, CMA 7.114 Austin, TX 78712

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~dcloud

 I feel it is injudicious to separate both the results of an investigation and the motivation for its formation. In Mr Churchill’s case, he was clearly the object of ideological rage and animus stemming from his essay on the 9/11 attacks. While academic misconduct cannot be excused or tolerated which appears to have occurred in some of Mr Churchill’s scholarship, I believe dismissal was excessive. His most egregious offense was to write essays under an assumed name and use those sources as confirmation of some of his work. I think such actions cannot be defended but I also believe an investigation of his scholarship that is motivated by passion and anger is guilty of possible overreaction.

As I have written elsewhere, when state governors involve themselves in personnel matters as was frequent and undeniable in this case, a university is subjected to unwarranted POLITICAL presssure to “fix the problem.” Firing a tenured professor should not be conducted under these circumstances and anticipate there would be no public concern about bias and efforts at ideological cleansing.

Witness: Churchill was not apologetic

Professor Joe Rosse, who led CU’s Standing Committee on Research Misconduct, has testified that the panel was convinced Churchill had plagiarized, falsified and fabricated some of his scholarly writings and had engaged in academic misconduct.

He also testified that he was concerned that Churchill was not apologetic and failed to recognize standards of good scholarship.

Churchill, a 61-year-old former ethnic studies professor at CU-Boulder, sued the university after he was fired in 2007. He believes he was let go because of the political controversy that exploded following an essay he wrote about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Over the last two days, jurors have asked questions that appear to challenge CU’s case.

In Colorado, judges may allow jurors in civil cases to submit questions for witnesses. The questions are submitted to Denver Chief District Judge Larry Naves before they are read by him to the witness.

This morning, jurors asked Rosse about the panel’s decision to have a full professor serve on the investigative committee rather than an associate professor who specialized in the specific field of American Indian studies.

“It was not either or. We wanted a person that was both a full professor and with expertise,” Rosse said.

“Did you ever consider anyone else to be chair of the investigative committee after Ward Churchill shared his concern about Mimi Wesson having a bias against him?” a juror asked.

Rosse said he could not remember.

Wesson, a CU law professor chaired the investigative committee and has been accused by Churchill of having a bias against him before she headed the panel.

Wesson denied the allegation when she testified earlier in the trial.

Today’s snowstorm stopped the trial this afternoon and also could cause scheduled testimony to be postponed into next week if the weather remains unsafe Friday.

Judge Naves issued an order about noon to close the courthouse.

Felisa Cardona: fcardona@denverpost.com

I recently appeared on a Gaza Panel and noted the issues of academic freedom and the New McCarthyism as competing values in America. In particular in critiquing Israeli policy toward the besieged Palestinian nation there is a taboo on critical thinking or even scholarly discourse.

I appreciate this rather attractive blog running an excerpt:

http://wardchurchilltrial.wordpress.com/page/7/

Dr. Peter Kirstein has posted his remarks for the Chicago Gaza Panel, including a “naming names of the courageous victims of the New McCarthyism who refused to be silent”. (And one of the best jabs I’ve ever seen at the always/already useless Stanley Fish.)

Spanish philosopher Miguel Unamuno, during the Spanish Civil War, declared in 1936, “Sometimes to be Silent is to Lie.” He directed this remark on his campus of the University of Salamanca, where he had served twice as rector, to the pro-Franco fascist General Milan-Astray, who forced him off campus at gunpoint and placed Unamuno under house arrest. This was a shocking violation of academic freedom which I am sure Stanley Fish, now op-ed columnist of the New York Times, would with characteristic nuance defend.

Unamuno died within two months after suffering a heart attack. In this country professors have been denied tenure, denied promotion, subjected to public vilification, experienced censorship of their books, been prohibited from speaking at previously scheduled events, been suspended, denied the right to teach classes in their specialty, pressured to turn down appointments at universities, and have been fired from both tenure and non-tenure track positions for speaking truth to power about the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Naming names was used during the McCarthy Era to blacklist and smear supposed communists and internationalists including many academicians. Well I am naming names of the courageous victims of the New McCarthyism who refused to be silent: Norman Finkelstein, Joel Kovel, Terri Ginsberg, Mehrene Larudee, Douglas Giles, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Nadia Abu El-Haj, Joseph Massad, Ward Churchill and Juan Cole…