View Thread

Atheists Today » Easy Reading » The Rant Room
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
[UPDATED]Kowboy's Kicked Out of College
Kowboy
Apparently the Bill of Rights doesn't apply at Oakland University:

http://thefire.or...e/890.html

Joseph "Kowboy" Corlett
 
seeker
Sorry kowboy but I have to disagree with you on this one.

Freedom of Speech is not a free pass to say anything. Threats, intimidation, incitements to violence etc have always been exclusions to Freedom of Speech as have things like libel, slander and some kinds of misinformation.

In this particular matter you expressed, in your journal, a particular attraction to your teacher. I do believe you when you claim that this expression was never intended to be taken as anything you would act upon. I also can completely understand how a teacher reading your 'Hot For Teacher' might see it as a sort of proposition, especially when you write about your other miscommunication with an attractive young female student.

Surely you must admit that including such an entry in a journal which you knew would be read by the very teacher you expressed an attraction to could be seen as a sort of 'come-on'. Even if you did not see it that way the warning your teacher wrote in that very same journal was very specific.

Then we have your outspoken position on guns and even an advocacy for openly carrying weapons on campus. While I am not a woman I believe I can state with some confidence that the notion of a gun wielding student spontaneously confessing a sexual attraction would be somewhat intimidating. There have been enough shooting incidents on campuses to make even the least politically correct people particularly alert to just such circumstances.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Skeeve
Wow. That was quite an overreaction by the school. And the teacher is quite the drama llama.
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
Theory_Execution
Hmmmm, from my reading of it, it does come across "heavy on the sexual" - especially when you continued after the request to stop.

You also responded calling her 'officious' - but refering back to your initial pages, where you stressed the bounds of your relationship, wanting to be friends after you have paid her for her services... services which included playing the hard teacher role.

I dont know how close to the events the touting of Second Amendment Rights was, but I can see why she might be concerned.


But to the University's reaction, I do not think it was fully justified - all businesses have terms and conditions of contract, many sculpted in such a way that you can abandon said contract on a whim - but even contract law states that agreements have to be legal - i.e. you cannot legally sign your life away for the contract holder to end it.

Your initial brain storming was Free Speech, your continued discussion of her after her request to stop was where the problem comes in, verging on harrasment.

You have to remember, although you were free in writing what you did, your teacher was bound by her role as your teacher to read/review what was in it.

They could have got you out on 'failure to compy with tutor instruction / failure to meet course requirements' or something like that.

My question is, Why did you turn down council?
 
Kowboy
Theory_Execution wrote:

Hmmmm, from my reading of it, it does come across "heavy on the sexual" - especially when you continued after the request to stop.

You also responded calling her 'officious' - but refering back to your initial pages, where you stressed the bounds of your relationship, wanting to be friends after you have paid her for her services... services which included playing the hard teacher role.

I dont know how close to the events the touting of Second Amendment Rights was, but I can see why she might be concerned.


But to the University's reaction, I do not think it was fully justified - all businesses have terms and conditions of contract, many sculpted in such a way that you can abandon said contract on a whim - but even contract law states that agreements have to be legal - i.e. you cannot legally sign your life away for the contract holder to end it.

Your initial brain storming was Free Speech, your continued discussion of her after her request to stop was where the problem comes in, verging on harrasment.

You have to remember, although you were free in writing what you did, your teacher was bound by her role as your teacher to read/review what was in it.

They could have got you out on 'failure to compy with tutor instruction / failure to meet course requirements' or something like that.

My question is, Why did you turn down council?


Theory:

You are incorrect in your statement that I continued after being told to stop. That is not factual, there is no evidence of same. In fact, the University's black woman attorney Diversity Director instructed the Student Conduct Committee that my behavior did not meet the Department of Education's standard of sexual harassment according to Title XI, which they are required to follow as recipiants of federal student loans.

I never called her "officious". I don't know where you're getting this stuff. It is not in the written record.

I have not "turned down counsel". Ms. Mitzelfeld held a hen party in which she described my Daybook to nearly the entire English department, violating FERPA, and turning my initial choice of adviser, Dr. Dana Driscoll, against me. She denied me my due process rights by default.

I have a lawyer. If we have to sue to get the University to abide the Constituiton, I will do so unapologetically.
 
Skeeve
Kowboy wrote:

Theory_Execution wrote:

Hmmmm, from my reading of it, it does come across "heavy on the sexual" - especially when you continued after the request to stop.

You also responded calling her 'officious' - but refering back to your initial pages, where you stressed the bounds of your relationship, wanting to be friends after you have paid her for her services... services which included playing the hard teacher role.

I dont know how close to the events the touting of Second Amendment Rights was, but I can see why she might be concerned.


But to the University's reaction, I do not think it was fully justified - all businesses have terms and conditions of contract, many sculpted in such a way that you can abandon said contract on a whim - but even contract law states that agreements have to be legal - i.e. you cannot legally sign your life away for the contract holder to end it.

Your initial brain storming was Free Speech, your continued discussion of her after her request to stop was where the problem comes in, verging on harrasment.

You have to remember, although you were free in writing what you did, your teacher was bound by her role as your teacher to read/review what was in it.

They could have got you out on 'failure to compy with tutor instruction / failure to meet course requirements' or something like that.

My question is, Why did you turn down council?


Theory:

You are incorrect in your statement that I continued after being told to stop. That is not factual, there is no evidence of same. In fact, the University's black woman attorney Diversity Director instructed the Student Conduct Committee that my behavior did not meet the Department of Education's standard of sexual harassment according to Title XI, which they are required to follow as recipiants of federal student loans.

I never called her "officious". I don't know where you're getting this stuff. It is not in the written record.

I have not "turned down counsel". Ms. Mitzelfeld held a hen party in which she described my Daybook to nearly the entire English department, violating FERPA, and turning my initial choice of adviser, Dr. Dana Driscoll, against me. She denied me my due process rights by default.

I have a lawyer. If we have to sue to get the University to abide the Constituiton, I will do so unapologetically.


Odd way of describing her.

I'm still in your corner, but that stuck out when I read that post.
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
Theory_Execution
Then it may be just coincidence, or the manner in which your Log Book was scanned, but here is what I saw from your link:

Joseph Corlett's Daybook, November 1 2011
Fourth scanned page:
Maybe when class is over and we're friends on facebook I could call you 'Pamela' or 'Pam'.... As long as we can view our student/teacher relationship as patient/doctor I think we'll be fine. Perhaps confessor/priest?


Comes across as flirting to me - nout wrong with flirting though.

Fifth scanned page:
Hot for Teacher


Ninth scanned page:
Hot for teacher continued


Tenth scanned page:
Note from Mrs Mitlzfeld
Dear Joseph;
While your writing is [no idea], it is completely innapropriate, I have taken your [no idea] and torn out the offending pages. If this continues I am obligated to report you to the Dean, otherwise I shall consider this matter closed.


Eleventiethatory scanned page:
2) Officious - aggressive in offering unwanted advice


I dont know if this was a word you picked up the next day, but any lawyer she mounts would go for your definition, immediately following her entry into your book, as an assessment of her character and input.

And depending on when you wrote the spirited gun carrying piece to the paper was it? Her lawyer could argue you were incensed by your advances to her being knocked back.

Sixteenth scanned page:
9/23/11
Hot for Teacher continued...


As I said up top in this post, I dont know when things occured as they are undated, but one would assume people would scan documents in chronologically. So after being told discussing matters of sexual attraction to staff was inapropriate, you continued here.

Letter to Joseph Corlett from Oakland University Assistant Dean of Students Karen Lloyd, January 3, 2012
In reference to item #9 of the Student Rights Checklist for Nonacademic Conduct
Matters you have indicated to me you do not want to have an adviser.


She may have lied here, I do not know, which is why I asked - so you are saying you never communicated such a thing to her?

Go for the courts, but sit down with your lawyer and try to spin the facts in every way possible to see where she might come from.
 
seeker
kowboy - TE and I are reading your journal the same way it seems. I too see that last 'Hot For Teacher' entry as being after her warning.

You're attempt at defense is interesting. I'll leave aside your characterization of the Diversity Director, a description which oddly works against you. The school wasn't trying to prosecute you and I suspect was even trying to protect you in some regards. They were acting to prevent the situation from escalating.

Clearly the teacher was made nervous by your attentions and the simplest remedy would have been for you to drop her class. Your refusal to drop her class because it would ruin the schedule you wanted to keep probably read as a signal to her that she was to be further subject to your attentions.

You ended up forcing the school to choose between putting the teacher in a situation in which she felt unsafe or taking you out of her class. Your own intransigence forced the school's hand. The fact that they left the door open for your return suggests their action was more intended as a cooling off period than as a punitive measure.

Your proposed lawsuit is probably not going very far. Even without the pages that were removed there is enough in the notes you provided to show that your teacher acted reasonably. You don't have constitutional grounds for a suit, that's purely over-dramatization on your part.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Hypatia
Kowboy wrote:

Apparently the Bill of Rights doesn't apply at Oakland University:

http://thefire.or...e/890.html

Joseph "Kowboy" Corlett


Kowboy, I think that when someone says, 'Stop' or 'No' or 'I don't want you to do this anymore' that's what it means. Period.

Also, it is unfortunate that college campus violence has made it necessary for campuses to take the kind of precautions to try to prevent it that can perhaps make things unbalanced and not necessarily in favor of students who are not a threat.
 
Kowboy
All:

Please reexamine the "note from Ms. Mitzelfeld." The handwriting? It's mine. I made it up.

I was never told to stop even after asking twice. That's why it doesn't qualify as sexual harassment under the US Department of Education's guidelines, which OU must follow as a Title XI school.

Three beautiful twentysomethings in my Women's History class (B+) repeatedly asked me to participate in the library study group. So much for being a creep in real life.

Here's the school paper article and my responses:

http://oaklandpos...ry-action/

Kowboy
 
Skeeve
Glad to see my original assessment holds.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to create false letters from the instructor. Unless it was to highlight the lack of negative feedback from your work to date.

If you don't mind, would you explain this reasoning, please?
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
Theory_Execution
Why would you make it up?

It's coming across more like you were fantasizing about her in the book, drawing her into the role you wished her to play.

I read through the comments at the bottom of the article as well, and now I am left thinking you were trying to push a point, urging the staff to put a foot wrong somewhere.

One of the commentors sums you up as brutish in expressing your opinions, there is nothing wrong with that, I have faced the same criticism too, but without knowing all the facts, how you behaved throughout the year, I cant say I side with anyone.
 
Theory_Execution
Reproduce this peice on gun laws.
 
seeker
kowboy - The fact that you wrote the note 'from your teacher' noting the inappropriateness of your own behavior only suggests that you knew you had already gone too far. It certainly doesn't work as an excuse.

The issue you never seem to address is the Teacher's rights. She, in your mind, is allowed to be threatened with no recourse. The huge flaw in your entire line of reasoning is that you allow no room at all for any but your personal concerns. Unfortunately you aren't the only person involved.

The comments in the school papere article are very revealing, particularly:

There are many more facts to this case than the few that Mr. Corlett has presented to various media outlets in his attempt to raise publicity for himself. The University Conduct hearing in which Mr. Corlett was found responsible for repeatedly and deliberately intimidating his professor and another student in the class considered a range of evidence, not just his writing journals. Moreover, Mr. Corlett had a history of inappropriate classroom and campus behavior prior to this event. His case was reviewed by a committee of faculty and student representatives, and University procedures were followed to insure that Mr. Corlett received a full and fair hearing. Please do not mistake this for a free speech issue: it is not. This is a case where a studentís pattern of deliberate and repeated intimidation led to his suspension.


Kathleen Pfeiffer
February 12, 2012 @ 6:52 pm


My initial impression of this was that there was more to it than just the writing in the journal. Clearly I was right. Just what was the other inappropriate behavior referred to in her comment?

This rabbit hole just got deeper.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Theory_Execution
It is starting to smell a bit like a guy who takes a second guy to court, after seriously injuring himself in the second guys house... after he had broke in... and was robbing the place... ... ...

Haha! Ye as I said again, until I know more of the background, the solution is out in the open.
 
Theory_Execution
This was interesting:
"In other journal entries, Corlett described sleeping in the nude with his gun and making a fellow female student uncomfortable when he looked up her number and called her home."
Source: http://detroit.cb...niversity/

The internet is not painting a very nice picture of your Kowboy. It is starting to remind me of a comedian who fell from favour, one Jim Davidson.
 
seeker
TE - We must have had the same muse. I'm very troubled by the sheer number of posts by kowboy and F.I.R.E. in other forums about this. They seem to be treating this as a campaign rather than a potential court case.

You may also want to re-read the OU attorney's response to F.I.R.E., it clearly mentions that the evidence F.I.R.E. mentioned was not the only evidence in the matter.

F.I.R.E itself is really interesting. It turns out that F.I.R.E. is one of a bunch of extreme right wing groups attempting to push college campuses to the right.

Obviously the University cannot post the entire transcript of the hearing they conducted due to privacy issues. How about it kowboy? There is nothing preventing you from posting a transcript so we can view their case in full.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Theory_Execution
I have been doing more reading between posting. There are instances of this in multiple places on the web, quite a bit is cut and paste too.

What I wasn't aware of until today was that there were tell-tale signs of mental unease surrounding the Vaginia Tech shootings, in a very similar setting (creative writing class, fixation on teacher) - but little was done and it resulted in a blood bath.

So I can see why an english professor may be wary of a student with a fixation and a love of guns.

Yet, I read more, I do not know for certain but I believe I read a post from a professor linked to the affair, that said she had once previously had to seek legal help when a student of hers had developed into a stalker. This would be a second reason to look to move.

I would like all the details, but that may be an impossible task.
 
Kowboy
I made the local paper with video:

http://www.theoak...577498.txt




Kowboy





Forum Admin Notice:
added video

Edited by Skeeve on 02/14/2012 21:32
 
Kowboy
seeker wrote:

TE - We must have had the same muse. I'm very troubled by the sheer number of posts by kowboy and F.I.R.E. in other forums about this. They seem to be treating this as a campaign rather than a potential court case.

You may also want to re-read the OU attorney's response to F.I.R.E., it clearly mentions that the evidence F.I.R.E. mentioned was not the only evidence in the matter.

F.I.R.E itself is really interesting. It turns out that F.I.R.E. is one of a bunch of extreme right wing groups attempting to push college campuses to the right.

Obviously the University cannot post the entire transcript of the hearing they conducted due to privacy issues. How about it kowboy? There is nothing preventing you from posting a transcript so we can view their case in full.


Seeker:

I make no excuse that FIRE, my attorney, and I are waging a public relations nightmare for Oakland to pressure them to drop this travesty.

Let me tell you Ms. Mitzelfeld's "other evidence". She has a note from me to her relaying my concerns that another student may be plagerizing. She belives this is evidence that I "want to run her class". She alleged that I signed up for a Peer Tutoriing class so I would have to do an internship in the Writing Center where her office is, supposedly to continue to "intimidate" her. The only problem with her theory is that the written record will show I signed up for that class last year, before I even knew her. So her "other evidence" is a note and a class registration.

The only record of the hearing is on a tape that only I can transcribe in the Dean's office by hand. The hearing was 3 1/2 hours long. That's a lot of writin'. You're just gonna have to trust me.

What's missing from a lot of these stories is the University's failure to follow its own written protocol. The Chair of the English department is required to meet with me when I can't resolve a dispute with Ms. Mitzelfeld. She refused. Ms. Mitzelfeld admitted on the record in my hearing that she violated the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) when she gave my Daybook to another student without my permission. Ms. Mitzelfeld held a "public" (her word) hen party with the English Department BEFORE my hearing where she probably again revealed my Daybook contents illegally and "poisoned the well" agianst me. This caused me to lose my hearing adviser of choice, Dr. Dana Driscoll, by default.

If you want more of the "other side of the story", go to www.thefire.org and click on the blog in the upper right.
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
LAPD, Chris Dorner and Corruption [UPDATED] The Lounge 17 02/28/2013 19:53
[Updated 10/13/11]Victoria Jackson really is an unhinged loon! The Rant Room 17 10/15/2011 00:53
The New College of the Humanities The Lounge 17 06/13/2011 13:31
Kowboy Wins 125K The Lounge 9 01/31/2011 13:00
Kowboy Visits the Vet My precious! 9 05/23/2010 22:17