| THE PATRIOT RETURNS |
|||
|
Vol. 11, No. 4 June 2, 1998
She begged them to sign it as a show of their support for the Queen, and made hundreds of copies and recruited Lady Chattery Norah Chase to deliver them to department offices at the college. She also remembered to fax copies to several senators in other CUNY units, and carried a cardboard box loaded with copies of her attack to the Graduate Center for distribution at the Senate's Plenary session on May 19. Finally, the election was over and Susan had won. But, alas! What a disappointment! With all that work, the Queen had won by only fourteen votes. What a shame that Susan could not win by a larger margin! The Patriot had succeeded in its impact on the senators. It had convinced thirty-three out of eighty senators (42%) that the Queen had only one motive for running -- the perk of Released Time. The recent philippic of the Duchess of Park Slope shows simple naivete by a faculty member who genuinely feels that she must help her "friend" at any cost. For example, in the two versions that we have seen, the Duchess branded the Patriot as a "scurrilous rag." She claimed that the Editor of the Patriot "holds no elected or appointed position, has no constituency, no authority, and no legitimacy." She listed numerous activities and supposed attributes of the Queen calling her a "worthy scholar," and complained that the writer of the Patriot had "none of these attributes." It is a pity that Ms. Richter, who had a reputation as a fair individual, has chosen to descend to dishonesty, fabrication of facts, defrauding of names on the letter, and the questioning of a colleague's right to express himself. First, careful examination of the letter will show that a) An alphabetical typewritten list of ten individuals at the end of the letter, without signatures, raises questions as to whether these individuals even read this letter before their names were used. In the absence of signatures, this letter may be nothing but an impingement on the integrity of those individuals who did not authorize their names to be used. b) A reliable source has informed us that at least one individual on that list (if not more) had not authorized his/her name to be used in this letter. This individual is furious at the Duchess of Park Slope for this unauthorized use. We believe that there are more, and that these individuals should confront the Duchess of Park Slope for violation of their rights. c) Two individuals had privately contacted the Editor of the Patriot to alert him that their names will appear in this letter, and to tell him that they had no choice but to acquiesce to be used for the benefit of the Queen. d) The name of Queen's best friend, Lady Chattery Norah Chase, did not appear on this list. But don't be fooled. She was busy arranging for distribution of the letter, one which supports an ardent New Caucus supporter. This once again confirms our strong conviction that while claiming to be a "friend" of Irwin Polishook, Lady Chase provides behind-the-scenes support for New Caucus activists. When will Polishook open his eyes and see this treachery? When will he realize that there is an enemy within his own caucus? e) The ten names on the letter represent less than 4% of the approximately 250 KCC faculty. These ten names (six from English, Professors Bonne August, Jocelyn Camp, Inez Martinez, Eva Richter, Rebecca Mlynarczyk and Mr. Ronald Walcott; three from Communications and Performing Arts, Professors Sheldon Aptekar, David Frankel and Terry Trilling; and one from the Library, Professor Jeanne Galvin) represent only three out of sixteen academic departments at the college. f) Twenty-four of thirty members of Queen O'Malley's English Department refrained from taking any role in the issuance of this letter. g) At least seventy members of the faculty refused to associate with this letter when approached by Eva Richter and her stooges. Second, the Duchess's characterization of the Patriot as a "scurrilous rag" seems strange in light of the one-and-a-half page, single-spaced, detailed response and the Duchess's monumental efforts to distribute it to the entire faculty and the Senate. One has to be out of his/her mind to give such importance to a supposed "rag." Third, to the Duchess's contention that the Editor of the Patriot "has no constituency, no authority, and no legitimacy," suffice it to say that the Editor was appointed at the rank of instructor and currently holds the rank of full professor; his constituency stretches from Kingsborough faculty to the entire academic community of the United States; he is a Ph. D. and a well-published author; and his legitimacy may be traced to his parent's marriage certificate and his birth certificate (verification that he was born a legitimate child.) Fourth, as to the Duchess's assertion that the Patriot's editor does not possess the Queen of Released Times's attributes of scholarship and leadership, we humbly recommend that the Duchess tiptoe her way to the Library and immerse herself in Books In Print, as well as Who's Who in American Education, Who's Who in the East, Who's Who in Library and Information Services, Contemporary Authors, and International Authors and Writers Who's Who. Now, our advice to the Duchess, Eva Richter: a) Enroll in a recognized doctoral program and complete a legitimate doctorate from a reputable institution of higher education. Consider herself lucky that for the last twenty years or so you have served as a tenured assistant professor of English (current salary $55,436.00.) If you were to apply for a job at Kingsborough now, without a doctorate, you would be offered a non-tenure track instructorship or lecturership, with a possible salary of $27,454.00. b) Do not allow yourself to be used by the Queen of Released Time for her released time. Don't be naive. She is using you. Editor: Sharad Karkhanis, Ph. D. Sharad
Karkhanis
Forthcoming issues of The Patriot may be accessed at the www.patriotreturns.com web site. Archived editions are available at http://www.patriotreturns/archive.htm. |
