Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Researcher Fired At NSF After Government Questions Her Role As 1980s Activist

Posted by samzenpus on from the skeletons-in-the-closet dept.

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.

15 of 499 comments (clear)

  1. Wrong Title by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Wrong Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

      Read TFA. It's a he said/she said deal. No real evidence has been presented that the researcher said anything that was untrue.

    2. Re:Wrong Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      And what are they accusing her of lying about anyway?

      Barr's first background interview was held in November 2013, 3 months after she began working at NSF. During that session, Barr answered âoenoâ 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.

      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??

      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.

      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:

      "I found out about the Brinkâ(TM)s robbery by hearing it on the news, and just like everybody else I was shocked,"she recalls.

      But OPM apparently thought otherwise, again citing her "deliberate misrepresentation" in its report.

      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.

    3. Re:Wrong Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Wrong Title by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Wrong Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Knew her acquaintance through the group went to jail. Didn't connect it. Like I said, the best excuse is obliviousness.

      Many years ago while traveling, I went to visit a friend of a friend. We hung out for a while and a neighbor asked her to watch her five year-old son for a while. We all chatted and (I don't remember what brought it up) I mentioned that I had never been to jail. The boy was shocked. He'd never met an adult male (apparently, his father was in stir) who had never been in jail.

      So, by your logic, since he knew many who had gone to jail, that five year-old boy is probably a criminal and should be shut out of any future opportunities. What a fabulous world you'd make for us.

    6. Re:Wrong Title by sillybilly · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I never thought about that aspect of skiing, surrounded by all white stuff. I still don't like to ski, or more like never ski'd in my life, nor would I want to. I used to go sled riding though as a kid, but I would not enjoy it anymore as an adult.

      The 2nd amendment, right to self defense, is there for the very purpose of allowing the people to violently overthrow a corrupt government that has failed them. It did not make it to be the very first amendment, because free speech, freedom of expression is that much more important and has been curtailed that much more often. Of course a failed government, paranoid about being overthrown because of feeling their own ineptitude and losing control of the situation, will start witch hunting anyone with the slightest signs or tendencies to promulgate such actions. What else is new. Fuck da Man and all his bitches he pimped into the highest offices in the government! Power to da People!

    7. Re:Wrong Title by sillybilly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Wrong Title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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!

    9. Re:Wrong Title by wiredlogic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What do you think she's guilty of?

      Believing that she lives in a free country.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    10. Re: Wrong Title by brianerst · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Snowden by Baby+Duck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    "Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins

  3. I need definitions by hedgemage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  4. James Clapper by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  5. Missing Critical Information by McNally · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's a shame that the summary and the article omit the most important information needed to judge whether this is reasonable or not -- details and evidence in support of the characterization of the groups Barr belonged as "linked" to the group responsible for the armored car robbery & murder. What does "linked" mean in this context: members in common? command structure? who knows? The article doesn't say, and without that information none of us can have a really informed opinion on the topic.

    Since there's not much to discuss from TFA, I'm going to tell you a little story from back when I was in school, because it's conceivably relevant (but then, as I've said, we don't really have the details we need to know..

    Annnnyyyyway.. Once upon a time, long ago (but still some years after this woman was in school) I was a student at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. During the time I was on campus there were a group of chuckleheads who fancied themselves the vanguard of the socialist revolution that was sure to sweep the country Real Soon Now (tm). They were the scourge of all of the small clubs on campus because of a trick that they pulled, over and over, quite successfully until the other student groups learned to defend themselves against it.

    Here's what would happen.. A small, inoffensive campus group having little or nothing to do with the main goals of the revolutionary organization in question would have a meeting at the beginning of the year to welcome new members and to elect leadership positions for the coming school year. Let's imagine we're talking about the Campus Knitting Society.. Well, a group like that might have 8-10 members who attended meetings regularly, and a few more who would drop in when their schedules allowed. The Revolutionary Chuckleheads League (not their real name) would descend en masse on the Campus Knitting Society the week that group was electing new officers and since a lot of groups had open membership the RCL would nominate its own slate of officers and take over the Campus Knitting Society. They'd use the small budgetary stipend the group got from the student government activities fund to print up flyers and the next thing you'd know, every kiosk on campus would be covered with fluorescent orange flyers saying "U of M Campus Knitting Society DEMANDS AN END TO US IMPERIALISM" and "U of M Campus Society Says: Free Mumia!". Then the Revolutionary Chuckleheads League would abandon the burned-out husk of the club they'd taken over and move on to play the same trick on some other organization. The shellshocked original club members, if they weren't completely soured by the experience, might form a new club to replace the one that had been stolen from them, which is why from time to time you'd see flyers pop up on campus saying things like "First Meeting Sunday Night: Michigan Knitting Club (NOT THE Revolutionary Chuckleheads League)"

    So.. I've got no idea from the article what Barr's politics were at the time, what they are now, and what her level of involvement with the banned group might be. But it wouldn't surprise me if there were a lot of people that I went to school with who belonged to perfectly harmless clubs who could conceivably fall afoul of the same shadow that blighted Barr's career just because they belonged to a club that got infiltrated and taken over by a group of radicals whose interests were only tangentially related to the club's original goals. I don't think that happens very often, but I would like for the government to have a higher standard than "affiliated" or at the very least to make clear what they mean by that.