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.
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.
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.
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!