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.

Comments

Wrong Title

[mythosaz]

Researcher Fired At NSF After Government Finds She Lied On Her Routine Background Check

Re:Wrong Title

[Bartles]

Let's see some examples of violent Tea Party activity.

Re:Wrong Title

[gstoddart]

Horseshit.

She didn't lie.

Have you ever known anybody who has committed a crime? Then you must be a criminal.

That's about the level of reasoning going on in this. She did NOT work for any such agency, she worked for a rights group, which some of the members were involved in another organization ... and that organization was doing illegal things.

This is guilt by association, pure and simple. There's no evidence to suggest she lied, only that an overzealous moron decided that her not making the connection to people she knew who knew other people who did things she didn't know or approve of therefore means she "lied".

This is pure and unadulterated crap.

So, if you have worked in the same building with anybody with a felony conviction (even if it happened after you were no longer there), then you by extension must also be a felon.

Tell me, have you stopped beating your wife?

Re:Wrong Title

[RightwingNutjob]

Again, baloney. The US constitution explicitly enumerates your right to *peaceably* advocate for the overthrown of the US government. The background check forms ask about *violent* overthrow. I hope for your sake you understand the difference and aren't so blinkered by your conspiracy theories to discount the former.

Re:Wrong Title

[gstoddart]

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

There is precisely zero logic in what you say, and if you don't know it, you should.

She worked for an organization which most certainly did NOT have a dedication to any of those things.

People who were also a member of that organization were members of a separate organization, which did. She did not make the connection, because in her mind the answer was emphatically "no, I certainly have not".

By your extension, if your pastor is caught fiddling with kiddies, you must be a rapist.

You sick bastard, why do you need to molest children? You should be castrated.

See, that's about the same a what you just said.

The best possible excuse is that she's just pathologically oblivious, not that the OPM has trumped up charges out of nowhere.

Or, you know, people she had a tangential relationship in an organization dedicated to one thing also had ties to people in another organization doing something else.

It's guilt by very indirect association, pure and simple. And, since they're not establishing guilt or innocence, they're saying she's politically tainted because of a tangential relationship.

But, hey, Bush was in business with the family of OBL ... so he was a terrorist too, right?

Give us a break.

Re:Wrong Title

[maroberts]

I doubt she had any idea that the third group even existed. Not sure what to think, except her response must not have been to their liking.

Sucks to be her.

At the time she filled in the form, she was obviously aware the third group existed as she had written to and visited one of its members in prison.

It is fairly obvious that her relationship with the "terrorist" organisation was very tenuous, but one point of a background check is a test of your willingness to be full and open about your past. In fact if she had given a full open answer, I suspect there would not have been a problem.

Despite conspiracy theories to the contrary, government agencies do not know everything about you. A background check will not necessarily find out everything about your past, but if it detects evasive answers then it is grounds for not employing someone in case there is more the potential employee is not telling or deliberately hiding.

Re:Wrong Title

[14erCleaner]

But, hey, Bush was in business with the family of OBL ... so he was a terrorist too, right?

And, as the Republicans used to repeatedly hammer us over the head with, Obama was a member of an organization that included Weather Underground co-founder Bill Ayers. While I'm no supporter of Bush, this kind of thing could get almost anybody.

Re:Wrong Title

[ShanghaiBill]

Advocating peacable overthrow is completely ineffective ...

It is ineffective because it is supported by less than 2%. That is how many people typically vote for someone other than the two party hegemony. Most of those voted for either the Libertarians or the Greens, which have completely opposite views on almost every issue. If you want to overthrow "the system" you need to figure out what you intend to replace it with, and convince more than a tiny fringe to support you.

Re:Wrong Title

[mythosaz]

Perhaps if she had disclosed being prison pen-pals with one of the armored truck robbery murders from M19CO we wouldn't be discussing it.

That's probably "had ties," I guess.

Re:Wrong Title

[sillybilly]

Russia or USSR or the Soviet Union is notoriously more violent against all kinds of people, including their own people, than the USA or any of its past governments ever were. For instance, during the Stalinist purges 40,000 military officers were executed point blank. What a waste of talent, executing the best of the best of a population? I have yet to see the US government do anything like that, "purges," executing the best of the best in anything, on a massive scale, but the tone of the government is slowly shifting in such a direction.

Re:Wrong Title

[DrJimbo]

I think she may be telling the truth but omitting the fact that she was continuing to contact those two is enough for them to take action.

How is it her fault they asked her the wrong question? Do you now have to be psychic to work for the NSF? They asked if she belonged to any groups "dedicated to the use of violence". She answered the question honestly. Do you really think she should have interpreted that question to mean "ever visit a dying person in jail who was convicted of murder"?

I think the OPM falsely claimed they rejected her for lying because the real reason tramples on her constitutional right to free association. The original question was about whether she herself ever had a personal dedication to the use of violence. I believe this is relevant to her suitability to work for the government. The unconstitutional question they did not ask, about her free associations, is not relevant by order of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Answering the question that was actually asked should be very easy for the vast majority of people. They need only search their own hearts. Answering the unasked question is much more difficult because you have to recall all of the people you have ever had an association with and search their hearts. It makes no sense for her to spend an hour (or ten minutes or whatever) to answer the very simple question they asked her.

To me it seems like the particular special agent who questioned her was effectively judging her on one question:

[ ] Are you now or have you ever been a liberal?

This is disturbing.

Re:Wrong Title

[ZosX]

Guilt by association is a terrible and dangerous thing.

Re:Wrong Title

[wiredlogic]

What do you think she's guilty of?

Believing that she lives in a free country.

Re: Wrong Title

[brianerst]

Jared Loughner (the man who shot Rep. Gabby Giffords) was a paranoid schizophrenic who was described by a classmate as being a hardcore leftist prior to manifesting his disease. Once his disease took hold, he became obsessed by conspiracies and hated all politicians but mostly the ones he knew of, like George W. Bush and Rep. Giffords. He was in no way a "tea partier" and had no knowledge of the "target ad."

Jared Loughner was a mentally ill person who tried to kill his local Congresswoman (among others). Had G. W. Bush or John McCain have been there, he would have shot them too. He was no more a tea partier than John Hinckley was an anti-Reagan Democrat. They were just both mentally ill and violent.

Snowden

[Baby Duck]

FTA:

Cohen speculates that the massive leaks by Edward Snowden of national security secrets, which began in June 2013, could also have been a factor in NSF’s decision. “If it’s a matter of weighing the employee’s statement against what the investigator says he has found, agencies will resolve it in favor of national security,” Cohen says. “That’s just how it is, especially after Snowden.”

Confirmed my suspicion when I first read the summary. THIS will be the lasting legacy of Snowden's actions. Not increased government accountability or transparency, but a hellbent determination to make sure they will never be caught with their pants down again. Sigh.

I need definitions

[hedgemage]

First off, what is a "Domestic terrorist group" and who makes the decision. Second, what are 'ties'? She was a member of 2 organizations that had 'ties' to a 'domestic terrorist group'. Does this mean financial or material support or that Joe Blow was also a member of the groups involved and therefore he was a 'tie'. Lastly, what was her 'dishonest conduct'? If she outright lied, that's one thing. If during her interviews/form filling she was asked if she had 'ties' (there's that slippery word again!) to any terrorist group if she honestly didn't know group X was considered a 'domestic terrorst group' when she wasn't even a member of group X and was instead a member of group Y which was NOT a 'domestic terrorist group' is that justifiable grounds for dismissal?

James Clapper

[Alain Williams]

So why was he not fired when he was found to have lied under oath to congress ?

You had to read further down the link

[s.petry]

Federal investigators say those groups were affiliated with a third, the May 19 Communist Organization (M19CO), that carried out a string of violent acts, including the killing of two police officers and a security guard during a failed 1981 robbery of a Brink’s truck near Nyack, New York.

She was not a member of a "terrorist group", but rather a member of groups claimed by someone to be affiliated. Further, the alleged acts of terrorism occurred a year after she was even involved in those 2nd hand groups.

According to the article, she did not lie either.

Federal investigators say those groups were affiliated with a third, the May 19 Communist Organization (M19CO), that carried out a string of violent acts, including the killing of two police officers and a security guard during a failed 1981 robbery of a Brink’s truck near Nyack, New York.

and

After again being asked if she had been a member of any organization that espoused violence, Barr was grilled for 4.5 hours about her knowledge of all three organizations and several individuals with ties to them, including the persons who tried to rob the Brink’s truck. (Four people were found guilty of murder in that attack and sentenced to lengthy prison terms, including Kathy Boudin, who was released in 2003 and is now an adjunct assistant professor of social work at Columbia University.) “I found out about the Brink’s robbery by hearing it on the news, and just like everybody else I was shocked,” she recalls.

Which of course corroborates her story more than the feds who removed her from the position.

In other words, yet another example of people abusing power.

Here's what convinced me she's right

[nbauman]

It's a he said/she said deal in which the special agent who was responsible for the interview didn't make a recording of the interview, and destroyed the notes afterwards. The agent just gave his own subjective impression of what she said. Why don't they make recordings?

It's also an interview by an agent who thinks it's funny to beat up liberal professors. I wouldn't trust him to make fair judgments about "liberals." He shouldn't be working in government.

FTA:

http://news.sciencemag.org/peo...

Barr was given a chance to appeal NSF’s decision, and on 11 August she submitted a letter stating that OPM’s summary report of its investigation “contains many errors or mischaracterizations of my statements.” (As is standard practice, agencies receive only a summary of the OPM investigation, not a full report, and lawyers familiar with the process say that an agent’s interview notes are typically destroyed after the report is written.)...

In her 11 August response, Barr questioned whether the special agent who conducted the investigation “can be an impartial evaluator of academic scientists, or anyone with liberal political beliefs.” As evidence, she points to a posting on a blog maintained by the agent, a veteran who served in Iraq, and his family. The item is a copy of a popular Internet meme about an incident that supposedly took place in an introductory college biology course.

According to the story, a “typical liberal college professor and avowed atheist” declares his intent to prove that there is no God by giving the creator 15 minutes to strike him from the podium. A few minutes before the deadline, a Marine “just released from active duty and newly registered” walks up to the professor and knocks him out with one punch. When the professor recovers and asks for an explanation, the Marine replies, “God was busy. He sent me.”

That agent may have served in Iraq, but he didn't serve to protect our freedom. He served to come back and establish a police state that's starting to adopt a lot of the characteristics of the Soviet Union.

There have been many prosecutions in which the government's star witness testified about the defendant's statements, and then the defense attorney found a tape and it turned out the defendant didn't say anything like that at all.

There's one reason why criminal investigators don't use recordings: So they can make up things and the defendant can't disprove them.