FW: Discussion on Master List Usage
jcraven at clark.edu
Wed Dec 12 16:00:23 MST 2001
From: Dennis Watson [mailto:dwatson at clark.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 2:11 PM
To: Fulkerson, Toni; Davis, Susan; Campus Master List
Subject: RE: Discussion on Master List Usage
I am concerned not with Clark's policy, but with usage of State
email that is considered illegal. Could not the school or individuals
be breaking Washington State Law by using State owned email for
political messages? Unless the laws have been changed, expressing
political views on campus has been illegal since before email. I
don't think any local policy can override State law and I believe we
are in violation of state law when we use email for ANY message that
is not business related. THIS email MAY be against state law!! I was
told by a state attorney that sending a message to folks about
getting together for lunch was illegal so I am led to believe much of
the frivolous messaging going on the Master list, or any other state
owned list, is illegal.
If success is A, then A equals X plus Y plus Z, where X equals"
work", Y equals "play", and Z equals "keep your mouth shut."
Mr . Watson wrote (May 13, 1997)
Nothing quite as cozy as losing $100,000 in money and wages, I am glad I
wasn't repremanded!!! I have stipulated to nothing more than you have done.
I KNOW it is illegal for a state employer to try to get support for any
legislative action, even if it does benefit the college! That is a DIRECT
ethics violation. Whereas I didn't knowly use school resources for my own
benefit. Most people on campus agree. It is the vocal few that are keeping
Clark in the spotlight and hence I decided to end the unnecessary publicity
that is hurting the college and get on with life.
Response: On November 13, 1996 The Columbian reported:
"Last November, A Washington State Patrol detective
examined 200 disks containing 11,592 files, according to
court records. Of those, the detective discovered 1,771 files
containing sexually explicit materials.
In addition, a second detective discovered 'several
thousand adult pornographic pictures' in other Watson
computer files, according to a WSP investigative
report. Among the images, reported detective Glen Hobbes
were depictions of heterosexual and homosexual acts,
as well as sex acts between people and animals.
Also seized were several undated e-mail messages between
Watson's college e-mail address and others.
Said one, 'Hi sexy, I was busy on the phone with a new
'friend' in Canada. Can't call her very often, though
to[sic] expensive!... By the way, have any sexy photos?
He He...If so, send them to Dennis Watson (Or take some
new poloroids...he he)."
Further response: 1) Either "The Columbian" is misquoting Det. Hobbes
or, Det Hobbes is lying or, Prof. Watson is lying; 2) If "The
Columbian" misquoted Det Hobbes, they run the danger of losing
further access to a source on furture stories (as I noted in a
previous missive, the fundamental capitalist-based imperatives of the
media demand attention to maintaining good relations with present and
potential future sources); 3) If Det Hobbes were misquoted, I know
him and Sgt Haw of the WSP (both very intelligent, professional, hard-
working and honorable police officers) and Det Hobbes would have
demanded a retraction or correction on his statements--he did not; 4)
If Det. Hobbes had lied, he would have risked and would be risking
exposure and possible litigation for slander or libel as well as loss
of his job through statements that could potentially be proved as
lies--Det Hobbes is far too intelligent to leave himself exposed in
such a way; 5) That leaves what possibliity? 6) According to these
press accounts, Prof. Watson was not only engaging in the collection
of commercial porn, he was engaging in predatory behavior viz a viz
private individuals and soliciting private (polaroid) pictures (the
exact charge in the original complaint that led to the investigation).
Further: the "Notice of [Ethics] Board Action dated March 20, 1997 on
page 2 (point 3) states:
"I acknowledge that I acted in appropriately when I used the
College computers to download pornography from the Internet sites
and to transmit personal electronic messages of a sexual nature.
Although the Instructor Computer Unser's Committee (ICUC) did
ask me at one time to determine how to access pornographic
websites in order to determine how to limit student's access to
those sites, I exceeded that authority when I downloaded,
collected, and stored pornography in my computer in my office.
In short, the downloading, collecting, and maintaining of
pornography in my faculty office was not related to my official
duties, and I should not have done it."
Which is it? Is Prof Watson lying in this statement about being
guilty of the abovementioned offenses (when in fact he has done
nothing that "I" haven't done and is in reality "innocent") or is
he lying about not being guilty of "unprofessional conduct", "ethics
violations" and "misuse of State resources"?
Further: Why the reference to the ICUC when most of the porn
collected was from a time period well before the ICUC was set up even
and when the demonstration for which he "volunteered" (was he setting
up a cover as the ethics complaint against him had already been filed
well before the ICUC was even set up or this exercise occurred?) was
on a one time basis. Phile Sheehan wrote:
"...I asked for a volunteer from the committee with experience
using the www to conduct the demonstration. Dennis Watson agreed
to conduct the demonstration...
With the exception of the aforementioned demonstration,
Prof. Watson was not asked or directed to continue the
exploring and cataloging sexually explicit sites on the
Internet by me or, to my knowledge, any other Clark College
administrator. Dr. Johnson neither attended or sanctioned the
Response: So why the reference to the ICUC in his statement to the
Ethics Board when the ICUC one-time demonstration clearly had nothing
to do with the offenses for which Watson was charged? Who gave Dr.
Larry Easter the impression that Watson was working at the behest of
the ICUC to "research pornography"? Does this irrelevant reference to
the ICUC one-time demonstration (with no reference to the fact that he
"volunteered") not suggest that he "volunteered" for this assignment
to give himself a potential cover for charges that had already been
filed and about which the Administration had knowledge? (I alerted
the WSP at the time that a potential cover was possibly being
constructed and that short of a outright conviction, he would be
returned to Clark because of his tight relationship with the
Administration--one WSP Detective later said to me "You called it
(that he would return) and I just didn't want to believe it.")
The fact is, that several individuals have been dismissed from
employment (denial of tenure or outright dismissal) for far less than
Prof Watson has admitted to having done and with a lot less due
process than Watson has been given. The fact that he continues to
tell outright and provable lies about his own case and that of my
wife shows why he has been returned to Clark, it shows the need for
comprehensive and fairly applied standards of due process at Clark
(available to those who are not compliant sycophants of the powers-
that-be) and the imperative to end all cover-ups and built proper
foundations at Clark,.
More to follow.
* James Craven * " For those who have fought for it, *
* Dept of Economics * freedom has a taste the protected *
* Clark College * will never know." *
* 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. * Otto von Bismark *
* Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * *
* (360) 992-2283 * *
* jcraven at clark.edu * *
* MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION *
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism