Slashdot Mirror
Researcher Fired At NSF After Government Questions Her Role As 1980s Activist
sciencehabit writes Valerie Barr was a tenured professor of computer science at Union College in Schenectady, New York, with a national reputation for her work improving computing education and attracting more women and minorities into the field. But federal investigators say that Barr lied during a routine background check about her affiliations with a domestic terrorist group that had ties to the two organizations to which she had belonged in the early 1980s. On 27 August, NSF said that her 'dishonest conduct' compelled them to cancel her temporary assignment immediately, at the end of the first of what was expected to be a 2-year stint. Colleagues who decry Barr's fate worry that the incident could make other scientists think twice about coming to work for NSF. In addition, Barr's case offers a rare glimpse into the practices of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), an obscure agency within the White House that wields vast power over the entire federal bureaucracy through its authority to vet recently hired workers.
Missing from the summary is what she was a member of: "the Women’s Committee Against Genocide and the New Movement in Solidarity with Puerto Rican Independence." I was a member of my high school's student parliament but wouldn't think to report that during a background check and wouldn't consider it any more relevant than what this woman did thirty years ago.
And what are they accusing her of lying about anyway?
The two organizations in question-- one was called " Women's Committee Against Genocide" and the other is the "New Movement in Solidarity with Puerto Rican Independence." Sound pretty radical?
So how is what she said "being less than forthright" in her answer??
So wait-- she was part of a group that was-- at least from the name-- "against genocide". And because of "affiliation" to ANOTHER organization... she was lying?
They call her in again and grill her for four and a half hours:
Uh, this doesn't seem to be (from a sparse article that is probably not very complete) very clear cut at all, although I do see the easy potential for targeted politicization. Be on the lookout for political radio pundits to distort further and connect the dots with rampant speculation.
The /. title is also misleading.
FTFA:
Barr answered “no” when asked if she had ever been a member of an organization “dedicated to the use of violence” to overthrow the U.S. government or to prevent others from exercising their constitutional rights.
But since the government decided that the activist groups she had been a member of 30 years ago were "affiliated" with a terrorist group, they considered that a lie. Despite the fact that there is no evidence the groups she was a member of had any violent mission statements, actions, or tenets.
Unfortunately, there were terrorist groups whose members were also members of otherwise peaceful groups. If someone in your church/gaming guild/book club/political group/fantasy football league is also a member of a terrorist organization, your group is not necessarily also a terrorist organization.
Researcher Fired At NSF After Government Finds She Lied On Her Routine Background Check
Actually, it is more a matter of "Researcher Fired at NSF After Government Alleges She Lied On Her Routine Background Check." After reading the article, it appears to me that this is a story that bears paying attention to, but is probably not a scandal. The researcher in question did indeed have ties with a questionable organization. Since the article fails to name the two subsidiary organizations of which she was a member it is not possible to dismiss her claim that she was unfamiliar with their ties to the parent organization. On the other hand, the fact that she was a member of two separate groups which were fronts for a third group significantly increases the likelihood she was aware that they were affiliated with the parent group. Especially when you combine that with her knowing members of the group who carried out an attempted robbery of a Brinks' truck, one of them well enough to carry on correspondence with him while he was in jail.
It is still possible that she was unaware of the ties, but by the time she was interviewed for the background checks, she should have been. After all, at that point she spent a significant amount of time corresponding with a member of the group who went to jail for a highly publicized crime related to the organizations of which she had been a member. On the other hand, the article certainly makes it seem like the information against her is somewhat sketchy.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Baloney. As someone who deals with the military industrial complex on a daily basis, I know for a fact that the forms you submit to the OPM ask you in plain English "have you ever belonged to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the US government" and these forms are retained by the OPM for something like 7 or 10 years, after which you are required to resubmit them. If she said "no" to the question in question, but knew that her acquaintances went to jail, something objectively doesn't add up. The best possible excuse is that she's just pathologically oblivious, not that the OPM has trumped up charges out of nowhere.
I know it's almost too difficult, but really, read TFA. She did not lie on her forms. None of the groups she belonged to had any such agenda. The OPM made a connection between the groups to which she belonged and third violent group. There is (apparently) no evidence that she belonged to such a group, supported it in any way or would have supported such a group if she knew it existed and had a violent agenda.
Why don't you go beat up some grandmothers or something? That seems about your speed.
Just so.
Look, basically three things get you into trouble during a government background check:
1. You *currently* participate in an organization trying to harm the United States Government.
2. Anything about yourself or your family life leaves you vulnerable to blackmail.
3. You conceal relevant truth, lie, or exhibit a pattern of deceit and/or theft.
Pretty much nothing else disqualifies you for work for Uncle Sam. You can even get a security clearance.
So, DON'T LIE. Err on the side of telling the interviewer more than he asked. Especially if it's embarrassing. An open book is easy to read and it's incredibly hard to blackmail someone who is never too embarrassed to seek the local security officers' help.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
No, the form specifically asks in question 29.7: "Have you EVER associated with anyone involved in activities to further terrorism?"
She did not inform them of her continued relationship with two convicted members of a terrorist organization, including visiting one in prison. I'm not seeing a lot of gray here. She clearly should have answered yes to this question and explained her tenuous connection to these people. That she lied NOW is the problem, not that she was a minor activist in the 80's.
Which is exactly why the U.S. government deserves to be overthrown. Unless they're going to welcome in their critics, they deserve destruction *by* their critics.
It has nothing to do with welcoming critics. It has to do with lying during the one step of getting hired where you absolutely shouldn't fucking lie.
My job requires government licensing, which includes a 10-year background check form in which we are to list things like arrests, charges, convictions, lawsuits, dispositions, , etc that happened in the past 10 years no matter how minor. Neglecting to mention anything, no matter how minor is immediate grounds for refusal of licensing. No license no job. Period.
The only thing I could have put on the form (in my case) that would have lead to a refusal of licensing is that I was convicted of specifically larceny (my job deals with very large sums of money.) I could have been an parole for the murder of a nun and that would have made no difference at all. My only job at that point of the hiring process was simply not to fucking lie.
I didn't. I got the license necessary to legally perform the job because I didnt fucking lie. Very fucking simple.
"His name was James Damore."
By your extension, if your pastor is caught fiddling with kiddies, you must be a rapist.
No, but when you deny knowing the pastor when asked, red flags go off.
Every member of a Seal team (as an easy example) has certainly associated with someone who was 'dedicated to the use of violence' and attempting to overthrow the us government by loose definitions. That doesn't make them untouchable.
If they claimed they never knew anyone who was dedicated to the use of violence, THAT IS ANOTHER STORY.
Having worked for the government and filled out these same forms, all you have to do is answer honestly. I too know members of both groups (violence and anarchy/overthrow the government). I know KKK members, and I'm fairly certain I know a former member of the black panthers, though he won't admit it.
That didn't stop me from getting the job, because I told them. In fact, I told them more than they could find! And they found some things I forgot to mention, but as soon as they made the slightest mention of it, and I remembered, I TOLD THEM FULL DETAILS. Thats all it took.
Its not even a little bit hard unless you're intentionally trying to cover up something, and thats where they get pissy.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
My reaction would have been much more polite if you had actually read and commented on the facts presented, instead of making up your own fairy tales to approve of a government action.
They did not ask her about criminal history in the last 10 years, read TFA! They asked her "if she had ever been a member of an organization “dedicated to the use of violence” to overthrow the U.S. government or to prevent others from exercising their constitutional rights." . Good grief man, reading is not that fucking difficult. The dismissal was based on a claim that she lied, because a group she was a member of 35 years ago was affiliated with a group that committed an act of terrorism 1 year after she stopped affiliating with the first groups. (emphasis mine)
Take the same logic to people. If you met someone in college and hung out 35 years ago, and 34 years ago that person met someone that committed a terrorist act you would have to know to claim "yup, I know someone affiliated with a terrorist" when asked the question today. And when you answer "no" they will grill you on that acquaintance from 35 years ago as if you had ESP and could know that they knew someone that committed a terrorist act a year after you last talked to them.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
She admits to having corresponded to a known terrorist. That may not be the letter of the law in regards to having been an member, but don't you think that she should have mentioned that particular fact, knowing that she was applying for government position that actually required more than a cursory background check?
Hell no. Not unless they asked her about it. She certainly should not have morphed the simple question they asked her about her own group membership into a much larger question about the group memberships of all the people she had ever had any contact with.
The fine article says:
... Balagoon died in 1986 of an AIDS-related illness. (Barr says she wrote to Balagoon occasionally while he was in prison---"it would have been reprehensible for me to drop my correspondence with a dying person," she explains---and visited him once.)
This has nothing to do with her own affiliations. It was also almost 30 years ago. If her association with this man was innocent (which no one is disputing) then it is very unrealistic to expect her to dredge up this old memory during the interview process when she is being bombarded with other questions. Expecting her to answer a complicated question when she is asked a simple question is also highly unrealistic.
I ran into a similar problem with the DIS (now the DSS). They got upset because I had associated with people they thought were communists when I was in graduate school. They were also upset because after grad school a couple of Russians, along with other foreigners stayed at my house for about a week after we all got to know each other working on a volunteer trail crew for a week or two. They were here as part of an exchange program. This was right around the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall when our relationship with Russia was still frosty.
I had answered all of their questions honestly. I was not aware of the political affiliations of all of the people I had worked with. It never occurred to me that doing my patriotic duty by showing a couple of Russians the benefits of the American system was of any interest to the DIS until they accused me of withholding this information.
If they had asked me directly about associating with communists in graduate school, I would not have been able to answer to their satisfaction because I just didn't know. If they had asked me directly if I ever had contact with anyone from a communist country then I might have remembered that short visit. But I might not have remembered even if they had asked because for me it was small, harmless, and inconsequential. When they asked me directly about that particular visit then of course I remembered.
I found the entire process rather intimidating. I was focused intently and racking my brain to answer all of their questions as honestly as possible. It never occurred to me to wonder about other questions they didn't ask that they might want answers to especially since the stuff they got so upset about was totally innocent and harmless. It was like dealing with a big angry girlfriend who expects you to intuit every possible thing she might get upset about even though she does not give you any clues about what those things might be.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
The group she belonged to advocated attacking key US military and corporate targets and leading a growing people's war. That sounds like an organization dedicated to violent overthrow of the government to me.
She knew they had commited murder. She visited one of them in prison. She knew they commited the act of murder as part of a terrorist organization and they were connected to the two groups she worked with. She failed to mention any of this. I can only surmise she didn't tell them because either she didn't think it mattered or she didn't think they'd approve of her aquaintances. Either way she failed to be entirely open. Evaluators frown on lack of openness. You may feel they were wrong but I can tell you from experience that they are consistent on this kind of stuff. They have no sense of humor and no real forgiveness for failure to be complete about all activity.
That's not how the questions are presented by the investigators. Every time I've been asked it's always phrased as a question of affiliation with any anti-government group, violent or otherwise. I always truthfully denied it while pondering why they don't believe in the truly American, constitutionally backed principle of toppling an oppressive government.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
The New Movement in Solidarity with Puerto Rican Independence had as its clearly stated goals:
1) The first principle of our movement must be anti-imperialism.
2) In order to fundamentally change the whole system of military, political and economic domination, our solidarity movement must fight imperialism in its totality. .. By opposing the entire imperialist system, our solidarity movement can support the revolutionary forces and actually help them to win a new world order.
3) The independence struggle of Puerto Rico is a strategic wedge of Latin American revolution that penetrates into the U.S. itself... In response to US imperialism, 5 armed clandestine political-military organizations in Puerto Rico, and the FALN in the US are attacking key US military and corporate targets and leading a growing people's war. Through their struggle for independence these revolutionaries act in concert with the continental anti-imperialist strategy. In January, clandestine independent forces destroyed 9 US jets used to train for possible invasion of El Salvador, valued at $45 million, in solidarity with the revolutionary forces of people's war in El Salvador and in support of the 11 Puerto Rican Prisoners of War. The stance of these 11 patriots as Prisoners of War, and the US charges of seditious conspiracy against them, demonstrate that a state of war for independence exists in Puerto Rico and the US, and that this war has the capacity to cut to the heart of US imperialism.
So... they're advocating violent struggle against the imperialistic US government... and they're associated with M19CO, a designated terrorist organization... and she knew 2 of the Brinks Robbery perpetrators... and she kept in touch with them after they were arrested, convicted, and sent to jail.
But you're right - there's clearly no reason for her to write "Yes" in response to having been a member of an organization dedicated to violent overthrow of the US government, or having any ties to groups with such aims!
Where does it say that its purpose is to allow the people to violently overthrow a corrupt government?
It's mentioned several times in the Federalist Papers. From Federalist #28: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo."
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas