Introduction and Background to the following public letter by Emma Kim, formerly of HR at Clark College and its contents and allegations were later sworn, unchallenged and unrebutted testimonies and submissions to courts in five different official hearings.
I had no foreknowledge that it would be written or of its content, I had no influence on its content nor knowledge of some of what it revealed (lead to discovery of the existence of a secret file kept on me since I was a whistle-blower on the Watson case that Emma Kim was ordered to send materials to but did not know that is was for an ongoing file of 4900 pages in six binders).
Where Emma by her own account was given early warnings and disparagement about me and told to fear me as being litigious (I have not sued Clark College even once), when they tried to turn her into a snitch, a team player willing to do what she knew to be illegal acts (Emma wound up as Supervisor of HR for a large firm locally), she became a whistle-blower.
The difference between a snitch and scab versus a whistle-blower and person of conscience is that a snitch and a scab to save his or her own skin (and also for money, ego, revenge, ideology, blood ties) will lie or sell-out anyone, especially those in whom he or she has gained some trust they can betray and trade-upon. The whistle-blower, on the other hand and in direct opposition, risks his or her own skin, and those of their loved ones, to try to stop corruption, or just not to cross the line of the law, or just to obey their conscience and values, and to try to save the skins of those he or she will never know, be thanked by, and that the whistle-blower may even by hated and sold-out by, as those whose own cowardice and opportunism were made open, naked, clear and clearly manifested in the courage and selflessness of quiet heroes like Emma Kim who lost her job to keep her soul and keep the law. https://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/the-whistle-blower-andversus-the-snitch/ and https://jimcraven10.wordpress.com/2014/05/31/lessons-from-the-animals-similies-metaphors-and-allegories-of-irregular-and-asymmetric-warfare-also-useful-for-whistle-blowers-and-anti-imperialists/
The following letter was sent to the Clark College Campus Master List February 13, 2003.
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 2:38 AM
To: Craven, Jim
Subject: An insider’s view of the civil and employee rights violations at Clark College
Please add my voice to the e-Forum at Clark regarding the indoctrination process of Craven bashing. I think my unique insights can explain in part why so many of your colleagues, administration and staff suspend their critical thinking skills when you’re involved. The fact that most of your critics don’t know the history behind the administration’s fertilization efforts is indicative of how deeply rooted the indoctrination process is. Thanks in advance.
Date: February 12, 2003
To: Clark College Staff, Faculty, Staff, ASCC, Administration, Board, Foundation, Foundation Board, and THE INDEPENDENT
From: Emma Kim
RE: An insider’s perspective of your employee and civil rights as practiced by some administrators at Clark
Many of you will remember me. I worked in Personnel for Donna Kelly and Katrina Golder as their Office Assistant III from January 1997 to March 12, 1999. Several of you have asked me why I left the college. I’m prepared now to provide my answer.
For any employee who has felt like civil or employee rights were violated, you were probably right if Clark’s Personnel department was involved. If anyone has had their mental state questioned after speaking up or out about an issue at the college, your experience is not an isolated one. In fact, there are number of you who’ve had your mental states questioned. Based on my interviews, the common thread is not depression but practicing your freedom of speech to expose a problem at the college.
While I was employed in Personnel, I was privy to questionable hiring practices and privy to the deliberate violations of civil rights. For anyone who has not know what “human resources” functions as, consider what we as a society do to our natural resources and then you’ll have a pretty accurate context to determine your value relative to the power structure. As an HR Administrator, as I laid off 150 members of the workforce, I advised the employees that as a rule of thumb, smile at the HR people, get on their good side, but don’t trust most of them. That was based on my experience with the HR Managers in two Fortune 500 companies I worked for but mostly based on my experiences at Clark. The role of HR personnel is not to protect your rights but to protect the state or company from litigation if rights are violated. It is virtually impossible for any Personnel manager to know all the state and federal employment laws and their nuances, so employee rights are violated all the time. Let me give you specific examples from my two years at Clark. What I’m about to disclose may surprise you and create shifts in your thinking:
While I was an employee in Personnel, I was asked by Donna Kelly to engage in a task that involved the violation of Jim Craven’s civil and employee rights. The specific task was to send all his emails to the AG’s office. (Mind you, not Dennis Watson’s or anyone else’s emails, just Jim Craven’s stuff. For those of you who might be wondering what’s wrong with that, it is illegal to keep separate files on employees. It is also illegal to keep a separate file on anyone practicing their freedom of speech as a dissenter or activist.)
It is important for the reader to know what my filters were at the time when Donna tried to get me involved in violating his rights. I was highly critical, vocal in my criticism and fearful of Jim. I said and held many of the negative sentiments that I continue to hear on campus and continue to read and sense in print. After all, I trusted my new supervisors and coworkers when I was given the run down that Jim was litigious, slanderous, manipulative, a trouble maker, unreasonable, potentially violent and mean. I also asked about Dennis Watson since his emails were being distributed on the master list at the same time as Jim’s. Unlike with Jim, I was given an objective run down on Dennis, that he was caught with [alleged] child pornography using state resources. There was no subjective demonization like, “Dennis is a creepy slime bag who will eyeball your underage children with a gleam in his eye.” WatsonFile – Copy
Equally important for the reader to know in order to understand that Craven bashing is an indoctrination process that all new employees go through as part of an informal orientation is how I felt about working in Personnel for Donna and Katrina. I thought I’d found two of the best bosses ever in my work history. Given those filters, I could see exactly what my department was talking about in Jim’s emails.
Despite my own prejudices which were extreme by my own admission, I clearly understood that Jim’s rights were being violated by the very officer assigned to protect the college from discrimination and harassment. I refused and asked Donna why we were doing something we weren’t suppose to do to which she promptly replied with back peddling, “Oh, that’s okay. You don’t have to do it.” And that was the end of it, so I thought.
Shortly after my refusal to violate Jim’s rights, a central part of my duties that I performed for Donna was eliminated. While I had been privy to sensitive and private documents, all the tasks that included touching or seeing such documents such as copying, faxing, etc. were eliminated. Concerned that Donna had eliminated my job duties as a result of my refusal to violate Jim’s rights, I brought up the elimination of those duties to Katrina who reassured me that changes occurred “all the time.” I was confused and tried to make sense of what was going on. I felt conflicted about Donna. Was I working for an unethical person? How could I be? Donna was married to an African-American civil rights activist. No, maybe I was just making a mountain out of a molehill. Maybe, Katrina was right. Why would Donna violate Jim’s rights? No, way, she wouldn’t do that. She’s the AA/EO officer. These were some of the thoughts that ran through my mind as I tried to make sense of conflicting cues. Through the process of denial, I eventually rationalized that Donna’s intention was benevolent in trying to protect the college from Jim, so I let the issue go. After all, it was about Jim, the campus dreg.
But, the red flag kept bleeding. So, questions about Jim arose and I found myself asking why Jim was so angry, why he was so hell bent on thumping certain administrators. What was this guy all about? As I listened and watched I began to realize that there was more going on than what I’d originally been told. One of the things that seemed strange to me was that I hadn’t heard a single positive remark about Jim since I’d gotten hired. Even if an employee is not well liked, I have enough HR and supervisory experience to know that with critics, there are also supporters. So where were all of Jim’s supporters? I had not met a single supporter, not even amongst the tenured faculty. I had heard that Jim was well liked by students. But that confused the issue for me even more. Why did the students like Jim, but why did Clark’s employees detest him. The only thing I could do was watch and listen and read his emails thoughtfully.
In retrospect, it’s ironic that Donna’s action was what turned on my critical thinking circuitry and made me insatiably curious about what Jim Craven was all about. I was still vocally critical of Jim but given human nature, I feared my supervisors would think I was beginning to support him, so to alleviate any fear that I had subversive intentions, which I didn’t at the time, I told Donna and Katrina that I wanted to talk to Jim and get to know him. In my naiveté, I believed that these two very educated officers would appreciate the fact that I was up front with them and that I was taking initiative to gather information for myself rather than continuing to go on hearsay. After all, I worked in higher Ed where research and knowledge were supposed to be encouraged. Direct research is always better than with secondary or tertiary sources.
Neither discouraged me but each warned me to be careful. Donna reiterated that Jim could be very manipulative and that if given the opportunity, he would twist my statements and use them against me or the department. Given the Craven myths, I was still fearful that Jim would blow me me off as Donna’s and Katrina’s “whore” just because I worked for them. But, I also had enough information by then to offer Craven the benefit of doubt. So, the OAIII from personnel knocked on his office door one day and introduced herself. “Hi Professor Craven? My name is Emma Kim and I work for Donna Kelly and Katrina Golder….”
Since that introduction, Jim and I have become close friends. In fact, I frequently describe him as one of my best friends. I know his extended family and he knows my husband, mother and 13 year old niece, Berlin. He helps out where he can with a 13 year old “at-risk” youth who I mentor who is diagnosed with multiple disorders including ODD, bipolar affect disorder, and ADHD. I regret that I bought into the indoctrination because for two years, the opportunities for developing our friendship were wasted. For two years, the opportunity to expand my mind from the great books Jim’s turned me onto were wasted. For two years, the opportunity to expand my political knowledge from our numerous political discussions was wasted. But most importantly and significantly, Jim was denied the benefit of a supporter that could have made a difference in his life for two years. Clark’s administration is directly responsible. The waste cannot be measured because our friendship is priceless. I respect Jim so much and I can’t emphasize how troubled I am that so many of you continue to criticize him when most of you have never taken the time as I did to research and extrapolate the history of Jim’s troubles at Clark. I read numerous documents and interviewed dozens of people. Piece by piece, I put the jigsaw puzzle together and what the picture revealed was a systematic process the administration used to control dissenters. I’m writing to expose that pattern. It is one the ACLU, US Dept of Education, Civil Rights Division, WA Human Rights Commission and WA DOP is interested in. In fact, WA DOP stated to me unofficially that they were aware of a possible problem at Clark but that they didn’t have the resources to do anything unless the problem reached a certain level. I was encouraged by WA DOP to write a letter to GAAPCOM!!!!
For the reader, given the time and space factor, I am editing out a significant chunk of why I chose to leave the college. The following events took place after my refusal to violate Jim Craven’s civil rights. The significant facts are these:
1) I experienced harassment for two months beginning from the moment I walked into Personnel after my return from family leave by a coworker who violated my rights under state and federal family leave acts. That coworker eventually confessed to harassing me saying that she was angry with me for all the work I’d left her to do while I was gone despite the fact that a former hr administrator named Martha had been hired as my temporary replacement. But when pressed to explain what work I’d left for her, she was unable to list a single task that had made her angry enough to harass me for two months upon my return and which made her angry enough to have no consideration for the tremendous stress and burden I was under while I was caring for family members, one of whom had Alzheimer’s.
2) Despite being one of only two staff members with a college degree, immediately upon my return, despite excellent documented reviews, job history and ethics, my job duties as an OAIIII were eliminated. Upon my return from leave, I performed only OAI duties which were strictly answering phones and helping people at the college. This elimination of job duties was not a directive from my supervisors. They didn’t know my training supervisor had eliminated the duties. That fact surfaced when I was given the following task:
3) When I returned from family leave, I was given a task with a three month deadline to compile the affirmative action data for all permanent positions for the past five years, which represented dozens of positions. The elimination of my job duties actually turned out to be a godsend but as far as my supervisors were concerned, I was still expected (via verbalization) to carry on my normal job duties which included multiple walk ins and phone interruptions while trying to retrieve or extrapolate data from half a dozen sources, some of which were located in the back office, in other departments, in Olympia, and/or in various mediums, electronic and hard copy. (Picture yourself having to get up and find files in another office or another department, bringing the files back to the desk to analyze while people are walking in and phones are ringing, then having to return the files once the information was found. Picture yourself having to do that multiple times several times a day as a part time employee.)
On top of the logistics of data gathering, not a single person in my department knew how to do the analysis from step 1 to the end. So, basically, I also had the task of figuring out how to compile AA data the way Olympia expected it. I’d never been given a deadline date, nor had emphasis ever been placed on compiling the data until I returned from leave. Prior to taking family leave, I’d never been directed, let alone pressured to start the task. Given my work ethic, had the instruction been given, I would have begun the analysis upon being assigned the task.
Given the deadline and since no one knew how to compile the data anyway, Martha could have started the task while I was on leave. That would have provided an additional two months to make sure the baseline report was done correctly. If my coworker was truthful and she had “so much work” to do while I was on leave, the inference is that Martha had very little to do. Keep in mind, that I was being harassed every day while I was desperately trying to get the reports done in between phone calls and walk ins.
2) Sue Williams, your new AA officer, informed Katrina Golder, not once but twice that I was being harassed.
3) Despite Sue’s disclosure to Katrina, neither Katrina nor Donna stopped the abuse. I had to deal with my own hostile situation.
4) When I asked Donna why she didn’t stop the harassment, she replied that she didn’t know about it.
5) When I asked Katrina why she didn’t stop the harassment, she replied that she didn’t know about it. Please refer to #2.
When Katrina lied to me, I realized that if my supervisors, the Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Officer and the Director of Personnel would not provide me with a hostile free work environment under their supervision, and I had no chance in the world to advance at Clark. The fact that I had to inform them of the harassment that was taking place under their very noses and the fact that I had to ask for a hostile free work environment says enough about their cultural ignorance, lack of skill and failure to fulfill their duties as state officers to provide safety for one of their few ethnic minorities on campus.
But that’s only the beginning…
In January, 2000, I made an appointment with President Tana Hasart. If anyone remembers her email dated May 24, 2000, she talked about the “mean spiritedness that resides here at Clark…” Her very last statement in that email was, “If anyone would like to discuss these issues with me I welcome your observations. Please share them in person…I promise to make time.
I’d been privy to civil rights violations and irregular hiring practices. Well, back in January, I had lots of information and concerns about the mean-spiritedness at Clark. So in the hour I met with her, I delineated everything I knew about the civil rights and ethics violations and questionable hiring practices including the hiring and promotions of her friends, Liz Torrence, Lorraine Sandstrom and Lisa Buenaventura (who is given special mention in Tana’s dissertation published in 1992 if memory serves me correctly) and the improperness of the Director of Personnel position that Katrina Golder filled. Of the administrators who engaged in the violations, I named Donna Kelly and Katrina Golder. Of the administrators who abused their administrative positions in the presence of classified employees, I named Lisa Buenaventura for her critical remarks and apathetic attitude about multiculturalism at a state organized brain storming session in Federal Way and Janelle Farley for engaging in Craven bashing at an informal network of Clark women that was held in the rec room at the complex where Jenny Freeman lived, that included several classified staff. If any reader is privately saying that Janelle was just practicing her freedom of speech, I’d suggest that you research the WAC that defines a state employee’s role during “off hours.”
Again, for sake of time and space, I’ll eliminate significant history and context. To make a long story short and to make my point, Tana Hasart thanked me for my courage to blow the whistle on these people and I departed with Tana’s understanding that I would take advantage of the rapport I’d built with the Clark community and gather more documentation to present to her at a later time.
Then a curious thing happened. On March 2, 2000, at 8:00 am, I received a letter from Security. The letter was sealed in a white envelope with 9:00 listed on the front. Security was supposed to pull me from my first period class to deliver the letter which was from the VP of Student Services. But one of my contacts had called me the night before and given me advanced warning that I was about to get thumped so I took the initiative and went directly to Barbieri’s office to talk to him. I introduced myself to Cindy Olsen who said that Security had a letter for me from Barbieri. That’s how I got it an hour in advance of the scheduled delivery time. That letter
“March 1, 2000
Dear Emma Kim,
This letter is to inform you that a meeting with you and the Vice President of Student Services has been scheduled for 11:00 am Thursday, March 2, 2000 in the Vice President’s office in Gaiser Hall. The meeting will address some conduct issues, on your part, that have raised concern about your well being. Your attendance at the meeting is mandatory.
Should you desire to have another person present with you at the meeting you may contact that person from the Vice President’s office before the meeting begins.
James Barbieri, Ph.D
Vice President of Student Services
I was completely shaken. Recognizing this tactic from the practices I observed in personnel and also recognizing that if I followed Beriberi’s instructions, I’d never be able to find anyone who had the time in that moment to take an hour to serve as my witness given the inherent controversy and climate of fear at Clark. So, I showed my first period professor the letter and asked if he would serve as my witness. Being shocked by the tone of the letter, he agreed to cancel his class and attend the meeting with me which was scheduled to immediately follow my next class which was at 10:00. I also called Sue Williams and asked if she would serve as my witness because she was the one who could confirm that she’d informed Katrina about the harassment and provide context as to the environment I worked in. She said she would but she didn’t show up saying in a typed note that said that she didn’t feel she could be of any help inferring that she knew what the meeting was about.
When I arrived at the meeting, aside from the faculty member who served as my witness, there was another person present and I asked him to identify himself. He said his name was Dr. Mike Christianson and that he was Clark’s resident psychologist. I asked why I was called to this meeting and why Dr. Christianson was present and Barbieri explained that he’d met with other administrators who were concerned about activities I was engaged in at the college (like the letter indicated) who were concerned that my activities were possibly a danger to myself or to others which was why Christianson was there. I asked who my accusers were and Barbieri said, Tana Hasart, Yvette Jackson, Katrina Golder and Lisa Buenaventura. Please bear in mind that all the information that Barbieri and Christianson received was second, third, and fourth hand information, the sources being the very administrators I’d blown the whistle on including Tana since I addressed the hiring and promotions of her friends during my meeting with her. Yvette, however, was involved in a different capacity.
Before I proceed, the reader should also know some facts. Beriberi’s PhD dissertation was a study on PTSD experiences of college rape victims. His academic background is in guidance and counseling as is Tana’s. His bibliography lists several studies on the effects of trauma. Given his background, please note the tone of his letter to me. When I walked into Beriberi’s office, there was a chair placed in the middle of his office that was obviously for me. To get a better graphic and “feel” of this arrangement, picture a 120 pound 5’6″ Korean woman, traditionally raised to revere scholars, doctors, etc., jobless with no real economic power, a college flunky several times over who took 11 years to get her BA degree sitting in the middle of the VP of SS’s office in a chair with my back towards the door. Seated directly in front of me are two white males, Barbieri and Christianson both with their legs spread wide open. (I crossed my legs.) Barbieri must be about 6’3″ or 6’4″, over 220 (?) and Christianson must be about 6′, over 250 (?) with PhD’s and economic power. My witness was seated to my right and was barely in my peripheral vision.
During the meeting, Barbieri acknowledged that the only thing I was “guilty” of was practicing my academic freedom to assemble which was part of the investigative work that I was going to present later to Tana. Christianson concluded that there was no problem. And I was sent on my not-so-merry way.
But that’s not the end.
I respectfully requested an explanation as to what Tana, Yvette, Katrina and Lisa said that caused Barbieri to think I was a danger to myself and possibly to others. The WAC’s, P&P’s listed in the back of the college catalogue clearly outlines what to do if an employee believes that someone is a possible danger to self or others. The rule wasn’t followed. If Tana, Yvette, Lisa or Katrina felt that I was a danger to myself or to others at the time I spoke to them, Security should have been called to escort me off campus. But remember, I hadn’t talked to these administrators for two months. Whenever I crossed paths with them, if close enough, I received waves or eye contact and a “hello.” I never got the impression from any of these administrators when I saw them that they thought I was a danger to myself or to others. Why would I be a danger to myself or others? Has anyone on campus ever felt that I was a danger?
Following my meeting with Barbieri and the resident clinical psychologist, I asked a permanent security officer if my name had ever been brought up. Given the spontaneous reaction and response, I believed that officer who said that my name had never been mentioned in Security. The telling response was when I was asked why. The college catalogue also states the discrimination policy for those with actual or perceived disabilities. I was perceived to have a mental illness and I was forced to meet with the resident clinical psychologist. That was a blatant violation of my civil rights.
I respectfully asked multiple times for an explanation of the administrative action against me.
I was met with silence.
Weeks later, I started hearing from classified staff that couple of the same administrators were slandering me and instructing staff not to talk to me because I was mentally unstable.
I started feeling angry.
I kept asking politely for accountability. I was met with continued silence. I asked not so politely for accountability. Then Mary Deal lied to me about Mike Christianson saying I couldn’t meet with him because he was out of town, but when I tried to make an appointment to see him after his return, Mary Deal finally fessed up and said that I was not allowed to meet with him, period. Mary Deal got sucked into the cesspool that Tana, Yvette, Katrina, Lisa and Barbieri created proving the point that bad money pushes out good money when she discriminated against me in her misguided attempt to protect Mike Christianson.
After months of silence after repeatedly requesting the administration’s accountability, I finally got ticked off and I sent emails to all the parties blasting them for their hypocrisy, lack of backbone and integrity.
For embarrassing these administrators and Sue Williams and exposing the Judases within, Barbieri violated my rights again and sent me another letter, dated May 25, 2000, the day after Tana’s email about mean spiritedness, the day of Carl Mack’s presentation on remembering history so as not to repeat the same mistakes in race relations. That letter read:
Dear Ms. Kim:
This is to notify you that an initial disciplinary proceeding has been scheduled for you on Wednesday, May 31, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. The hearing will be with Jim Barbieri, Vice President of Student Services, in his office, and will address the following violations of the Code of Student Conduct:
1. Disorderly, abusive and bothersome conduct. Disorderly or abusive behavior which interferes with the rights of others or which obstructs or disrupts teaching, research, or administrative functions.
The range of penalties for such violations may range from disciplinary warning to disciplinary suspension.
Please not that your absence does not prevent the imposition of sanctions.
Vice President of Student Services Office.
In Barbieri’s own words, “After reading and evaluating the numerous electronic mail messages you have sent to Sue Williams, Yvette Jackson, and myself, it became apparent that you are violating the Clark College Code of Student Conduct….Specifically, you are engaging in abusive and bothersome conduct which interferes with the rights of others or which obstructs or disrupts administrative function. Your language in these e-mails is being interpreted as abusive and bothersome and it has negatively impacted both staff and administrators on this campus. Frequently, your words are insulting, annoying, and have caused people to be anxious and concerned….”
Barbieri placed me on disciplinary warning which is still in my student file. Of course, he placed the warning without due process. I’d responded to his initial letter saying I would not make the scheduled meeting because I would be out of town. I didn’t explain; it was none of his business.
Without giving me an opportunity to reschedule and without asking for a reason why I missed the hearing, Barbieri passed judgment quickly and gave me a formal warning without due process. Now, I’ll explain why I couldn’t make the meeting. My grandmother had taken a fall and was in a nursing home. She’d taken a turn for the worse and the doctors advised the family members to see her because they thought she might die at any time. My entire extended family was meeting in Bellingham; that’s where I was going. It was already planned and relatives from California were already in Bellingham. That’s why I was not going to my disciplinary hearing. I felt seeing my grandmother was more important. I don’t know why I was never given an opportunity to reschedule. I guess that’s the reason that a WAC exists that states that an authority who has direct involvement in a situation should not be the authority imparting sanctions in the same situation. It’s a conflict of interest.
The reader may be tempted to believe that what happened to me was an isolated incident but it was and is not. Unfortunately, in my research, the pattern was the same for virtually every person who said they spoke up about some issue at the college. The most egregious action was the use of mental illness as slander which the administration passes on to key staff members who repeat the process to their coworkers who pass the slander to others till it takes on a life of its own like in Jim Craven’s case. The administration knows that once the slander is embedded, it will eventually get passed on to new employees as they learn the culture at Clark. At that point, the dissenter is no longer seen as a concerned employee of the college, but as a pariah and evil-doer. If you don’t believe the administration is capable of using these tactics, remember that five top level administrators met to talk about me and they continue to maintain a conspiracy of silent. I have yet to learn what slander was passed along about me during that meeting. Tana did reveal one component when I caught her off guard after the Carl Mack presentation. She said that one of the administrators said that I’d said that I was packing a gun around in a purse. This is simply absurd. I never said or remotely suggested anything about a gun or a gun in a purse. Yet that came directly from the President. I don’t even own a purse.
In defense of my friend Jim Craven, I respectfully ask every critic to take off your prejudicial filters and not form an opinion about Jim unless you’ve done your homework. Everything that happened to me happened after I defended Jim. I will let the reader conclude whether the elimination of job duties, Katrina’s lie, being forced to meet with the resident clinical psychologist, receiving a disciplinary warning, and being met with continued silence was related to my refusal to violate Jim’s civil rights.
If anyone has a response or would like more information or if you want to add your story to my research, please feel free to contact me a email@example.com Activism works! Four out of the five administrators who targeted me are no longer employed by the college.
And finally, a special note to Dr. Beyer:
Dr. Beyer, I regret that you denied me an appointment time to discuss these issues with you in private. I informed you that my allegations were of a serious nature. I’ve tried for 2 1/2 years to get accountability as to why I was forced to meet with Mike Christianson. Tana created the problem you’re now facing with me but I don’t have the time or the patience any more to deal privately with this matter. I’m sure you asked who I was. Those closest to you probably provided the answer. And depending on who that person or persons are/were, you may have heard the slander. If you would like to meet with me, I will do so but only with other long time civil rights activists. Two years ago, I did an analysis of all the colleges in the SBTCC system and Clark was the only institution that lost diversity in every single category post I-200. The losses occurred at a time when the ethnic diversity was rapidly gaining in this county. Since I did that analysis, more losses have occurred at the college. DOP is sending the documents for the current year and I will note any changes.
To THE INDEPENDENT: I encourage the college paper to do an investigative report of my allegations. I challenge you to find any misrepresentations or mistruths in my allegations. Because of the affiliation with the college, I will not provide you with sources. I will pass along my sources to a bonafide investigative reporter.
Blacklisting — Penalty.
Every person in this state who shall wilfully and maliciously, send or deliver, or make or cause to be made, for the purpose of being delivered or sent or part with the possession of any paper, letter or writing, with or without name signed thereto, or signed with a fictitious name, or with any letter, mark or other designation, or publish or cause to be published any statement for the purpose of preventing any other person from obtaining employment in this state or elsewhere, and every person who shall wilfully and maliciously “blacklist” or cause to be “blacklisted” any person or persons, by writing, printing or publishing, or causing the same to be done, the name, or mark, or designation representing the name of any person in any paper, pamphlet, circular or book, together with any statement concerning persons so named, or publish or cause to be published that any person is a member of any secret organization, for the purpose of preventing such person from securing employment, or who shall wilfully and maliciously make or issue any statement or paper that will tend to influence or prejudice the mind of any employer against the person of such person seeking employment, or any person who shall do any of the things mentioned in this section for the purpose of causing the discharge of any person employed by any railroad or other company, corporation, individual or individuals, shall, on conviction thereof, be adjudged guilty of misdemeanor and punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ninety days nor more than three hundred sixty-four days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
[2011 c 96 § 42; 1899 c 23 § 1; RRS § 7599.]
|Findings — Intent — 2011 c 96: See note following RCW 9A.20.021.Interference with or discharge from employment of member of organized militia: RCW 38.40.040, 38.40.050.|