Last one: First message for which I was written up--I think.

Craven, Jim jcraven at
Tue Mar 25 18:54:58 MST 2003

Sorry folks, this is the last one, but in case anyone wonders, this is what
I was responding to (bottom) and this is what has taken me to one step away
from termination. I apologize for the clutter but some want to see what this
is about and not just from my perspective. I do understand that well.

-----Original Message-----
From: Craven, Jim
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 8:53 AM
To: *FORUM at Clark College
Subject: FW: [Forum] Dumping/Deleting Vets to the Garbage Can

This stuff is typical of what we have here. You can slander someone, assume
rumors to be true and all sorts of predicates without evidence (beyond the
anecdotal) but as long as you do with with a smile ("smiling with the front
teeth, grinding with the back teeth as they say in Kerala") anything goes as
long as you are one of the insiders.

First of all, "Assistant Professor" where exactly Tom? Certainly not here.
Adjuncts are instructors here and tenured faculty or tenure-track are
professors. Secondly, calling a discipline a "science" doesn't make it one.
What makes a discipline a "science" has to do with methodologies and overall
epistemological approaches to gathering, analyzing, making inferences from
and applying data and knowledge. I know of no general recognition in
academia of something called "Military Science".

As for freedom of exchange and speech, it is for some not others at Clark.
How many of you have had maintained and used against you four secret files
about which you knew nothing (until it came out in sworn testimony by Susan
Wolf and/or until I found out about it from Emma Kim)? One was left by a
failed former president who got out just in the nick of time to a new gig
(right after, in his speech at graduation, he stated that he had been at
Clark for 14 years and looked forward to another 14 years--while he was
actively looking for work and setting up a visit from potential employers to
make sure they did not speak to any of his detractors and leaving, by all
accounts, a total mess at Clark). Another was left by a failed Dean whose
contract the Board refused to renew but who was kept on past his contract
until he could be palmed off on someone else (at Clark, administrators fail
upward to even higher positions beyond their levels of incompetence).
Another one being sent to the AG's office. And another one internal.

Here we see someone dismissing, or not taking on the content of my missives,
again with reference to my supposed propensities or proclivities with
respect to "style". This is of course natural in a place that values style
over substance and where there are many without substance and/or wouldn't
know what substance is if it ran over them with a truck. And spell it out
Tom. What are the "many" reasons I owe an apology? And to whom do I owe an
apology? Spell it out please or refrain from passing on what you cannot
document or defend. This place reminds me of the times of Joe McCarthy:
vague generalizations, charges without specificity, rumor mongering and
passing on stuff uncritically, demonization and marginalization.

How would you folks like it if your supervisor had been inundated with the
types of rumor-mongering and unspecified/unsubstantiated charges Tom is
repeating here--before that supervisor had even met you?

Tom, sorry, but in addition to your syntax and content in writing, your own
rhetorical "style" and lack of specificity in making serious charges and
casting doubts about my character on this public list, make me wonder if you
are fit to teach here, who hired you and who you might be fronting for.

Note: this enclosed statement was the only thing provided to me for which I
was written up. I just found this whole interaction by an administration
that says they want to look at the "totality" of interactions in evaluatiing
my original complaint.

And by the way, my own activism, since the 1960s, has also included activism
on Veteran's issues: Agent Orange, recognition and compensation; Gulf War
Syndrome, recognition and compensation; Medical care and facilities for
disabled Vets etc.

Jim Craven

Original letter:

Gerard & Jim,

I've never responded to Jim's comments although they often excite the
imagination.  As a representative of the military on this campus I often
feel it's not my place to try and put Jim in his place for personal attacks
on people who are offended by the commentaries he distributes.

I'm not sure it's the content of the message but (I hope anyway) rather the
derogatory comments made when Jim verbally assails people that offends.  I
think people have vicously made verbal attacks him.

Jim commentarys are worth looking at it.  It is unfortunate that his
personal comments to folds discredit his own character and credibiilty.  His
comments typically make the contribution he is trying make to become
basically null and void.

I've read many of Jim's comments over the last year plus.  He owes an
apology to many on this campus for many reasons.

Continue to send your commentaries Jim.  I've also enjoyed your Gerard.
Whether I agree or not your certainly make me think.

Today I will introduce some of your commentaries in class.  I'll show a
video of a battle and ask the students, some of whom want to become cadets
and join the military to seriously consider what they are contemplating.

I do enjoy the freedom we have to make these exchanges.  A freedom that
comes at great expense.

Thank you,
Major Tom Davis
Asst Prof of Military Science

Replies to this message will be sent to the entire list rather than the
original sender.

Forum mailing list
Forum at

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list