The Columbian article failed to explicitly note that not only have I filed a
grievance, but per Clark College processes, my first level of appeal goes to
none other than Vice-president Ramsey ("please Mr. Himmler, at least fairly
consider the possibility thant anti-Semitism is evil and even
counterproductive") and then to Dr. Hasart who has already stated in the
article that: "...Craven's comments also put the College in a great deal of
liability." That means, through the representation of an attorney for Mr.
Annett (no name yet produced) and through the e-mails of Mr. Annett (without
even one example of alleged defamatory comments and none sent to the
reporter), the President knowing that truth is an absolute and complete
defense to slander or libel, has concluded--my future Stage II appeal
authority--that there is credible evidence that a) If I committed slander or
libel the College would have legal exposure; b) that there is credible
evidence that I did knowingly tell an untruth and/or told an untruth with
wreckless disregard for counter-evidence/argument that would easily expose
the untruth for what it is and, that I did so with malice and caused damages.
Because if what I said was true or asserted on the basis of good-faith
attempts for supporting and contradictory evidence--and that was attested to
by those who have direct and personal knowledge and evidence--then the College
has not potential threat of liability.
This is who I am supposed to appeal to and I have already been summarily
judged and convicted of "inappropriate use of state resources" and
"defamation." This is the level of "due process" at Clark--your appeal judges
are the ones that made the original determinations being appealed. Free speech
and academic freedom are of course "inconvenient" and bothersome--except for
themselves--for despots, megalomaniacs, narcissists and thugs.
Jim Craven
