Dear Mr. Volpe:

Thank you for writing to the president to express your views. I am responding on the university's behalf.

By Federal law, all CMU students are entitled to privacy in their relationships with the university. This puts the university at a distinct disadvantage when statements are made that are untrue. The university is limited in its ability to contradict those statements.

The university compares favorably with any higher education institution in its defense of the rights of all members of the community to express their opinions. The board and president have defended the rights of a wide variety of persons to express views and advocate their positions and will continue to defend these free speech
rights.

The university has an Advocacy Policy that has been in place for many years. It describes where students and others may engage in advocacy activities. Students have very wide rights of advocacy outside on the campus. The policy does not allow hand-billing and many other advocacy activities inside university buildings, except in connection with university sponsored events or in specified locations. That policy is applicable to everyone. Violations of the policy are dealt with through the student discipline procedures and employee discipline processes.

The Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Disciplinary Procedures (Code) has a long-standing and fair process for listening to both sides when students are subject to the university's discipline procedures. This process follows the best practices recommended for public universities and has withstood challenges in the past. The Code lists twelve possible sanctions that may be imposed for violation of university regulations, ranging from written reprimand to dismissal (for the most egregious violations). Students who decline to respond to charges are provided a hearing.

The university's processes for investigations and student discipline offer the persons involved a full opportunity to tell their side of the story. When they refuse to do so, the university makes a decision based on the information it has before it. It cannot allow persons to prevent closure on anything simply by declining to participate in legitimate processes.

Mary Jane Flanagan

Secretary to the Board of Trustees and

Executive Assistant to the President

There are several things of interest here. The most important is this...

By Federal law, all CMU students are entitled to privacy in their relationships with the university. This puts the university at a distinct disadvantage when statements are made that are untrue. The university is limited in its ability to contradict those statements.

Now, without mentioning Lennox, there is a clear insinuation here that he lied and that if they weren't legally handcuffed his lies would be exposed. This is not the first time I have seen this tactic used. A similar tactic was used toward Kevin Kuritzky in the fiasco at Emory. Let's examine the comments of an anonymous reader to this piece.

Due to some involvement in the ongoing lawsuit by Kevin against Emory, I am unable to reveal my name but was interested to see what was going on with the case. I never knew there was so much publicity surrounding the case and it was interesting to read about both sides for once. I believe in due justice but wanted to clarify a few things.1.

Although I am unable to give details, Kevin's pattern of behavior should have led to his expulsion way before his senior year. This went beyond "simple" things as tardiness and even plagurism. Unfortunately for other Emory grads, there were other students displaying "unprofessional" behavior at the same time and they were treated the same. I agree the timing of his expulsion raises some eyebrows, but nothing that he "revealed" was a secret.

Modus Operandi, mode of operation, is a close second to Res Ipsa loquitor (the facts speak for themselves) in my pantheon of Latin phrases. Studying both of these incidents, I continue to find more and more similarities that are frankly part of the Modus Operandi of corrupt admins that deal with students that attempt to stand up to them. This is one. This comes down to simple debating tactics. If the facts are on your side, you argue the facts. If they aren't, you try and marginalize your opponent. That is what is going on in both cases. In both cases, the facts are on the side of the students. If they weren't the admin would have pointed out the facts. Since the admins couldn't argue the facts, they attempted to marginalize their opponent by attacking their character. Dennis Lennox is insinuated to be a liar and Kuritzky insinuated to be unfit to be a doctor. In both cases, specifics or details are subtly not given and the lack of detail is explained away by vague and undefined legalisms. Modus Operandi.

This isn't the first time that administration officials attacked Lennox' character and the comment I alluded to wasn't the first attack on Kuritzky's character. In Lennox' case, administration officials traded this set of emails back and forth.

Mr. Lennox is not only someone with noxious political and social beliefs, but someone who has mental health issues, and someone who seems to be losing control. The psychologist's advice (he has been following some of this on the news) is the following: "Don't provoke him. Don't initiate a confrontation of any sort, be it email, letter, or a face-to-face. He will respond in kind and escalate. Do not respond to correspondence, taunts, or 'stalking behavior' other than by calling the police...

So are you saying that this kid is dangerous? As in Virginia Tech dangerous? Let's not ignore the warning signs

I received this unsolicited email from Dr. Michael Ward (currently of the University of Cincinnati though he went to medical school at Emory at the same time as Kuritzky) regarding Kuritzky

Mike, Just wanted to let you know that you shouldn't get taken in by Kevin Kuritzky. The guy is a pathological liar and I have personally been taken in by his stories only to realize that he was flat out lying. I also know numerous other people who have experienced the same. It is quite sad because he is a very charming, intelligent person. He just uses these skills to manipulate people. Don't get taken in by him.Mike--

Michael Ward MD,

MBA

Resident

Physician

Department of Emergency Medicine

University of Cincinnati

This was one of several times when university officials or those close to them referred to Kuritzky as pathological. I have been told by sources that University officials even characterized Kuritzky as a sociopath to Atlanta media.

Again, this is shocking and disturbing, but frankly not surprising. The administration's attempts to marginalize their opponents knows no bounds, especially when the stakes are as high as they are in these two cases. The admins will use any opportunity to smear their opponents because their marginalization is paramount in each case. That's because their opponents are presenting the truth, and because they are, they must be marginalized. Each administration has gone on a concerted effort to make Lennox and Kuritzky the issue rather than the actual issue at hand, and the allusion in this email is just one example.

The second intriguing part is this...

The university compares favorably with any higher education institution in its defense of the rights of all members of the community to express their opinions. The board and president have defended the rights of a wide variety of persons to express views and advocate their positions and will continue to defend these free speech rights.

I personally don't know how favorably CMU compares to other campuses, however in the case of Dennis Lennox, his constitutional rights were so threatened that in pure strange political bedfellows, even the ACLU came to his aide

Right Michigan has obtained a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union addressed to Central Michigan University President Michael Rao and dated November 27th requesting that the University lift a ban on videotaping Professor Gary Peters on campus, a ban targeted at a conservative student, Dennis Lennox. According to the ACLU the University's decision "violates Mr. Lennox's First Amendment right to engage in political advocacy."

Agree or disagree with Lennox's tactics, or with the ACLU's position on most other things, for that matter, but they're absolutely right about this one.

Lennox videotapes a Professor in a public setting at a public university on public property. CMU's targetted ban (it didn't exist before Gary Peters and Dennis Lennox) is a direct attempt to scuttle his First Amendment rights and, in fact, the rights of every Michigan taxpayer. Props to the ACLU for getting this one right.

Lennox has already had his right to use video equipment in public threatened. He was already sanctioned for distributing literature too close to a doorway. Now, he is being threatened with expulsion for distributing literature inside a building. Whether or not CMU's policy on free speech is fair or not, it sure doesn't appear to be applied fairly in this case.

The next intriguing part of this email is this...

The university has an Advocacy Policy that has been in place for manyyears. It describes where students and others may engage in advocacy activities. Students have very wide rights of advocacy outside on thecampus. The policy does not allow hand-billing and many other advocacy
activities inside university buildings, except in connection with universitysponsored events or in specified locations. That policy is applicable toeveryone. Violations of the policy are dealt with through the studentdiscipline procedures and employee discipline processes.

Since we are talking about fair, is it fair that only after handwringing and three months after the initial incident that Lennox was finally allowed to actually see the evidence against him? How can he mount a proper defense when the evidence is presented to him only a week prior to the hearing? If CMU is really fair, and Koper filed formal charges at the end of October, why did CMU wait until the end of January to present the evidence against him to Lennox?

Finally, I will note that an assistant responded to my complaints to the President. This is not out of the ordinary however it is quite ironic that when the initial complain was filed the President, Dr. Michael Rao, was carbon copied himself. If he is too busy to respond to complaints about the action, why does he need to be carbon copied in the original email filing the complaint?

Cross Posted at The Provocateur