False statements in Strohm’s
letter of January 17
Strohm never replied to this email even
though she wrote to Brenda Kirby, Secretary of the University, on January 19
saying “We did look at his
emails, with permission from the Provost. We did not just rely on the
allegations of Mr. Villarosa. I will respond to
his messages as soon as I have a
chance.“ She
has never produced any documentation to support her allegations and there is
none since a public records request yielded nothing relevant except the Email
to Kirby. On May 23, I was assured by Regina
Stabile, an attorney in Strohm’s office that I had
received “all
documentation responsive to your April 20th request.”
False statements in Strohm’s letter of June 15 to FIRE
Ms Strohm claims (1) that I have "no official business to
conduct using the University Network".
This is false; I am listed in the University directory as
Professor Emeritus and am an active scholar; I have three recent publications and
a new letter to a medical journal will be published shortly. Another article
was just submitted for publication. The
Psychology department is encouraged to include my publications in their annual
report. I have an on-campus mailbox in the Psychology Department and I receive
professional mail there. A recent
decision allowed retired faculty to serve on the Faculty Council and I was
nominated (but not elected) as a representative. I briefly served as advisor to a student
group - Youth for Western Civilization - until the Chancellor asked for my resignation, an event that
received national publicity. Retired faculty have numerous
privileges. Because of the actions
of the Chancellor, I no longer have full library access to which I am entitled
- I cannot access on-line journals at home which interferes with my continued
professional activities.
Ms Strohm claims (2) that I "established and used alias
accounts, such as focas@unc.edu, to conduct business for an organization with
no University affiliation."
This is false; I have not conducted business for anyone.
The University's policy on Use of
computer facilities forbids "Any commercial or for-profit ventures
(such as running a business using your campus web space, email account, or
network access)" FOCAS is NOT a
"business"; it is a 501(c)(3) not for profit public charity,
incorporated in North Carolina and (unnecessarily) registered with the NCSOS. It’s bylaws say that it was "formed to help support and
enhance the general operation of the Orange County Animal Shelter." Even if Villarosa's
allegations were true (which they are not), it would not be a violation of
University Policy. UNC resources have
not been used to solicit funds but UNC resources ARE used to solicit funds for many organizations as noted above. Furthermore, after I
responded to Strohm’s
letter of January 17, she never raised this spurious issue again.
Ms Strohm says that "Access
to the Network for his personal, non-official purposes was provided to him
solely as a courtesy." Actually it
is a "courtesy" granted to everyone listed in the UNC directory who has a UNC-1 card; This includes all employees and
faculty and all retired faculty. In
addition, retired employees who previously had an email address may continue to
use University Email.
Ms Strohm claims (3) that “The University tried for five months to steer a neutral course and leave
Dr. Cramer and Mr. Villarosa to their personal
feud.”
This
is false; the University did not
“steer a neutral course”. On November
22, without notifying me, Strohm wrote Provost
Carney, asking permission to inspect my emails.
He replied, saying “You have my permission. I recall the episode earlier that was a
major problem.” The major problem was an
episode involving an action by the Chancellor and my service as adviser to the student
organization Youth for Western Civilization.
The University received a great deal of unfavorable publicity as a
result of this. It is reasonable to believe that
this retaliation by the University is related to the Youth for Western Civilization
affair to which Provost Carney referred.
Two months later, on January 17, Strohm wrote me with a threat to cut off my IT access,
based on false complaints by Villarosa.
Ms Strohm claims (4) that "Over the ensuing ten days, Dr.
Cramer and Mr. Villarosa drew multiple University
employees into their dispute."
This is false. From
April 17 to April 27 when my IT access was terminated Villarosa
sent 15 lengthy emails to
the University while I sent five
which FIRE characterized as “ Cramer's
reasonable, good-faith efforts to defend himself”. My Emails were to Strohm
and Thorp with regard to Strohm’s demand that I remove a link to
another website from my University website.
The fifteen Villarosa emails are clearly
harassing emails which were successful in causing Strohm
and Thorp to take action against me in violation of my first amendment rights.
I note that UNC-Wilmington
recently lost a lawsuit
in which the Appeals Court said “The First Amendment protects not only the
affirmative right to speak, but also the "right to be free from
retaliation by a public official for the exercise of that right." Suarez Corp. Indus. v. McGraw, 202 F.3d 676, 685 (4th Cir.2000).
This
is false; any disruption was caused entirely by Villarosa’s
harassing Emails to UNC-CH and to UNC General Administration.
On
December 6, before being contacted by
Strohm about Villarosa, I
wrote her saying “Sorry you've been bothered by this guy; I'm learning more and
more about him. He is a real nut. I've just been chatting with Calley Gerber of Gerber Animal Law Center who has been
harassed by him too. I'll write him from
my ATT address from now on; let him complain to them about me.” I was
thanked by Strohm for that.
When
I learned two months later that Strohm had been
looking through my emails, I stopped using the University almost entirely.
My few emails prior to the loss of
my IT privileges were to Strohm and to Thorp in
response to Strohm’s false accusations against me; in
fact, from January 20 to April 16 I sent only one email to the
University. Furthermore, Strohm informed
Villarosa on April 20 that she
had visited my website and had seen "no reference to you [Villarosa] whatsoever," that Villarosa's
recourse lay "directly with Dr. Cramer," and that this issue was
"not a University matter."
Evidence
of Retaliation for my Speech
On April 22, I wrote an invited guest
editorial in the Chapel Hill Herald, criticizing Strohm. On April 22, Chancellor Thorp wrote me saying,
“If you cannot comply with Ms. Strohm's
requests, I will ask IT to disable your email account and web page. I'm sorry
that we were not to able to come to an amicable solution, but I'm very
disappointed that you disparaged our general counsel in the newspaper, and I
completely disagree with your assessment. This will be my last response to you
on these matters.” On
April 24, I complied with Strohm’s unreasonable
request to remove a link to the PAWS website.
On April 25 I wrote Strohm, asking for an
apology and offering to “consider
the matter closed and will remove all references to you from all of my
websites”. On April 27, Strohm wrote Stan Waddell, saying “Holden
and I are in agreement that Cramer's email account and affiliated web page need
to be disabled. What information do you
need from me? And how soon can this be accomplished? Holden wants to
write Elliot and let him know right after the account is disabled.
I believe that this retaliation by a public official is a
clear violation of my First Amendment rights and FIRE agrees.
.
.