Suspended student disputes disciplinary action

By Jordan Gonzalez
Posted: Friday, February 10th, 2012 at 8:54 pm | Last Updated: Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 at 10:44 am

Comments

Print This Email This Article

Email This Tweet This Article

Tweet This Add This Article to Delicious

Delicious

A 56-year-old Oakland University student, banned from campus for a year for writing in course assignments about his sexual attraction to a female professor, has enlisted the help of a Philadelphia foundation that argues the man’s constitutional right to free speech is being violated.

The Oakland Post is withholding the names of the student and the instructor due to the sensitive nature of the subject, although the man’s name and samples of his writing are included in a press release issued Friday by The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

FIRE is encouraging free-speech advocates to send protest emails to OU President Gary Russi.

The student was accused of violating ordinance number 6.02 (unlawful individual activities) of the University Ordinances and Regulations, according to emails from the Dean’s Office, which were made public Friday in a press release from FIRE.

According to the dean’s office document, the student has been given persona non grata status at OU and is suspended for the remainder of the 2012 school year. He will be allowed to register after his suspension only if he undergoes “counseling … to work on sensitivity issues.”

The press release stated that the student was suspended from his Advanced Critical Writing course after he wrote about his feelings of sexual attraction towards his instructor in an ongoing assignment.

FIRE’s senior vice president Robert Shibley declared the suspension a violation of student rights.

“Oakland University violated (the student’s) rights when it decided to punish him for his constitutionally protected expression in class,” Shibley said. “(The student’s) journal did not threaten anyone or contain anything that met the legal definition of harassment.”

In a response to FIRE’s press release, Sherry Wynn Perdue, the director of the OU Writing Center and the instructor’s immediate supervisor, said the FIRE report was misleading and “victimized” the instructor.

The student “never once addressed the course readings but instead used it as a platform to sexualize the instructor, describe his sexual relationship (or lack thereof) with his wife, write about a student in the course, and compose a fake letter from the course instructor to himself in which he admits that his entries are inappropriate and would be met with a visit to the Dean of Students,” Perdue said.

The student described the assignment, entitled a “daybook” by the course syllabus, as a journal to keep track of essays, first impressions, thoughts and free thinking.

He was suspended for two journal entries in the daybook written under the title, “Hot for Teacher,” which described his sexual struggles and his own sexual attractions to the instructor and previous instructors. He described his inability to concentrate due to her physical attraction and described his reaction when she first entered the room, to which “(he said) to (himself), drop mother——, drop.”

In a separate entry in the same notebook, the student called his instructor “my Ginger,” referring to the character from “Gilligan’s Island,” and he referred to a previous instructor as “my Maryanne.”

The student argues his constitutional right of free speech was violated and that the instructor said there were no restrictions in the writing.

The Office of the Dean of Students has declined to comment on the matter, due to the private nature concerning a student.

FIRE’s press release is located here.

tom joyce

Similarly, I agree with Mavis. There is more unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo here than fact, and when someone refers to a fact, it is seldom damaging to Mr. Corlett.

Here is what should have happened. The Instructor gets Mr. Corlett’s Journal, grades it for appropriateness to the objectives of the class and the objectives of the Journal. If she thinks the entrees are harassment or whatever, she tells him so and tells him what to do. If his writing still upsets her, she follows the rules established by OU and the Instructor and Student deal with the decisions and consequences.

FIRE will win this lawsuit, because you people at OU are a group comprised of some of frightened people, some people who think Free Speech means anything you don’t like is illegal, and rumor mongers.

I am a liberal Democratic voter who loves our President Obama, deplores the Catholic Bishops ruling what women can and cannot do with their bodies, and wants women to succeed wherever women want to venture.

But I do not believe a woman cannot handle what Mr. Corlett wrote, and I do not feel there is any similarity between Mr. Corlett and the shooter at Virginia Tech. Mr. Corlett has been married for thirty years, he has a history of non-violence, and he likes to stir the pot.

When did women get so delicate that they get the vapors when a man says in writing that the first thing he noticed critically, is that she is hot and sexuality affects his ability to think and write?

Mr Corlett is a rebel. Rebels make history and bring out what our rights really mean. Any obedient drone can use his Free Speech to parrot what a teacher expects. I find this Instructor missed a great chance to teach herself and Mr. Corlett a lesson in where writing and thinking and freedom get muddied up.

FIRE will win the lawsuit, OU will be shown to be a repressed and conformist place which honors rumors and character assassination, and you who attack free speech will all go back to waiting for someone to upset you by actually taking freedom literally.
Not Lolita

Well thought out and stated tom joyce, especially the point about, “…more unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo here than fact, and when someone refers to a fact…” since the whole basis of the uproar is firmly embedded in a well polished hall of funny mirrors placed about the interwebby by Mr Corlett and his eSquire. Ok, ok, they are not that well polished, but anyways I for one do admire all the rhetoric on rebels, drones, assassination, and conformists, misplaced as they may be. No one has said he is just like the Va Tech shooter, only that in such cases second chances are not possible and at some point real people have to make real decisions knowing the past abuses abuse of hindsight application. In this instance it removed a pot stirrer from the kitchen – it did not gulag him, beat him senseless, disappear him, prevent him from going about posting one sided “arguments’ at dozens, hundreds, thousands maybe of little social media institutions let alone force in to a remedial Constitution and Us class. As to you being a liberal and all that other jazz, who cares; what difference does it make?
Darren

Thanks for checking in, Tom. You really, really convinced all of us with your attempted lecture and calling us “stupid.”

Not.
rainy day real estate

Tom,

I respectfully disagree with a few of your points:

1) In regards to rumor and innuendo, there is not much in these posts that hasn’t been said by Mr. Corlett in other posts or in interviews. It is possible that someone posting as him could have made the posts although the writing style is consistent throughout. The most common example of rumor currently in the threads is the discussion of a lawsuit by Mr. Corlett himself. If there is an actual lawsuit or litigation forthcoming the details of it have not been made public.

2i) Hindsight is often 20/20. As far as the legal sexual harassment claim goes, unless the victim has said “stop” there is not much of a legal case even if the victim has indeed been harassed. The fact that someone may not be able to be convicted of a crime in court does not mean that act or acts did not happen. A convenience store robbery at gunpoint does not stop being a robbery because the accused thief did not get convicted of the crime. The store still lost their goods, and the person or persons still suffered through the events that transpired. Sexual harassment is very difficult to prove often simply due to the nature of the crime. Unfortunately for those who experience it, that does not mean that the events did not happen.

2ii) As pointed out by members of OU faculty and reported by several news organizations, Mr. Corlett was suspended for intimidation stemming from a series of events over a period of time. This issue of free speech in regards to what is in the journal is no longer in question now nor has it been since the academic hearing. The details of the hearing are not being released by the school as they are bound by Mr. Corlett’s privacy. The only person who could do so is Mr. Corlett, and so far very few details of the 3.5 hour hearing (his estimate) have been released.

3) There are several limits to the protections of free speech in both work and academic environments that have been ruled on by the courts over the years. Your claims for support of free speech should encompass an full understanding of the limitations and their impact in those specific environments.

4) The professor in question would appear to be a highly regarded and well supported member of the staff at OU with a significant amount to lose in risking coming forward. Mr. Corlett is not held by others at his school, in work, or in his personal life in the same high esteem. From to his prolific online post writing, it would take a reasonable person 30 minutes or less of web searching to find numerous postings of “Joseph “Kowboy” Corlett, and people’s negative responses to him to come to that conclusion.

Applying the principle of Occam’s Razor here, is it likely that all of those unrelated people have not made the same errors of judgement about one person? By his own admission Mr. Corlett likes to push the boundaries, and it would appear in this situation that he pushed too far. He now is faced with the consequences of those actions. If you want to give him support that is up to you.
rainy day real estate

That last paragraph should have read “…is it likely that all of those unrelated people have made the same errors…” not the negative of it.
Not Lolita

This is ‘creative writting’ not critical writing…
Not Lolita

Hey it’s not like this the the Critical Writing class, now are it?

Somehow this seemed salient of sorts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUFO8AGMwic&feature=youtu.be
michael j kaminski

tom (since that’s how we type our names, sans the capital) – I disrespectfully disagree with you simply based on your assertion that “Some of you are really anti-Free Speech, and some of you are actually stupid.” Nice job qualifying with “some” rather than falling prey to absolutes. However, the suggestion is still the same as an absolute – those of us who don’t agree with you are either anti-Free Speech or stupid, since you offer no other alternative. I guess I’ll put in my hat for the latter.
Concerned Client

I have been following this extended thread about Joe Corlett for a day or two. I got to wondering what he might do for employment now, as he is 56 years old and is currently now suspended from his college classes. It turns out Mr. Corlett previously performed stone counter refinishing as a contractor. He still has an account with Service Magic listing service as an “approved local service professional” for them in Michigan. I found this via their web page for him at: (http://www.servicemagic.com/biz/joecorlett).

I point this out because there was a disturbing bit of information about Mr. Corlett and women’s underwear that came up earlier in the article’s comments. I was skeptical when I read it so I looked it up myself. I found the full detail of the post thread at: (http://www.mywriterscircle.com/index.php/topic,26308.msg460655.html#msg460655)

This is what Mr. Corlett wrote back on May 28, 2010:

Several years ago I was at a customer’s home alone and was working in the basement wherein lay the laundry. She was an attractive middle aged blonde. A bright colored thong called my name and I responded. Unfortunately, they were from the clean clothes bin, as I discovered later, much to my disappointment. I smuggled them out and stored them in my Sawzall toolbox, knowing my wife would never look there.

I cannot believe you got me to tell this, but in the Dirty Show thread, I guess it’s confession time. I’m not touching “how used.”

I wonder if ServiceMagic is aware that one of their approved professionals has apparently stolen underwear from a previous client’s house, or the details regarding his school suspension. Does anyone know if they would they now be liable for actions by him based on the information about him being as publically available as it is? Speaking from experience, there are enough bad contractors out there. I thought we paid companies like ServiceMagic to screen them for us.

Now granted Mr. Corlett might deny that it happened and say he made up the events he wrote about. He sees himself as a writer after all; however to me that seemed doubtful from the context of the thread. Whatever the truth is behind that particular post, I would not hire the man who wrote it to work either supervised or not supervised in my house.
O-YOU

Why did guy attend this university? Because it is 65 percent female? Because he enjoys power and enjoys intimidating women? It is pretty clear that this guy was not there to learn but to chase women. The most important prerequisite to educate yourself is to express yourself and your inquiries with the exclusive purpose of learning, and not to offend or insult someone. Respect for the teacher is one thing without which you will not be able to educate yourself – afterall, they are your role models. It is clear that this jerk was not there for education; he is just a frustrated, sick low life enjoying the attention.
James

Mr. Corlett cannot claim a violation of his constitutional rights, in good conscience, when by his own admission, he violated two women’s rights by stealing their panties (which is also theft, which he can be charged with, and convicted of).

I am sorry, Mr. Corlett, but your own proclivity to speak freely about acting criminally against your client and your neighbor is more than enough for me to consider you lacking integrity, professionalism, and a reasonable moral compass.

Corlett’s confessions:
http://www.mywriterscircle.com/index.php/topic,26308.msg460655.html#msg460655
http://www.mywriterscircle.com/index.php/topic,26308.msg461086.html#msg461086

Corlett’s panty fetish extends to an English Composition teacher:
http://www.mywriterscircle.com/index.php/topic,31019.msg523705.html#msg523705

Just not buying it, Corlett.
Eternal Feminist

Freedom of speech completely aside…how about just don’t be a creep. No one likes a creep. I mean, do you HAVE to write about sexual feelings for a CLASS? I understand you were told you could write about anything you want…but why did you have to choose that? That’s so awkward. It’s almost like you wanted to stir up trouble. It’s called mutual respect.

As a former victim of sexual abuse, this kind of thing really rubs me the wrong way. This is not an issue of the first amendment whatsoever. It’s straight up sexual harassment as far as I’m concerned. I understand that there are technicalities as to what defines sexual harassment in the state of Michigan as well as in the Department of Education – and I think that both of them need to tighten up. This professor clearly felt intimidated or threatened by what was written about her and that’s not okay no matter what. The action taken against you was completely reasonable. This kind of thing is swept under the rug way too much as it is, so I’m very glad that isn’t the case here.

A lot of interesting points have been brought up here, but this is all I have to say, so I thought I’d say it.
We are watching you, Kowboy

Seems “Kowboy” is still attempting to advance his case on the web.

http://www.stephenking.com/forums/showthread.php/24668-Kicked-Out-for-Homework?s=61e95c388eace8bef1f284b12c34716b

“I want folks to know that Stephen King is not only an
amazing writer, but he is a huge inspiration to aspiring writers like myself. My
wife and I could not have withstood the public onslaught without his inspiration
and direction. Hopefully, he’ll read this.”

Yeah, and hopefully he will read all that we have read about you, Joe – in your own words.
Sue Danimm

I like that this thread keeps going; and I find it interesting that the FIRE people have disappeared or taken on new identities (“tom joyce” — yeah, right). I noticed that in one of the writer’s circle links above, Joe “Kowboy” Corlett (Kowboy, with a K like in Klan — isn’t that klever?) writes about his OCC teacher’s polka dotted panties in exactly the same way he did in his daybook. Apart from the lack of originality involved in stealing your own months-old chat room ramblings for a homework assignment, it suggests a different issue here — that he’d been planning this thing all along. That he set the professor up. That he was purposely trying to create conflict, and that he’s not particularly interested in the first amendment at all. That no matter what the professor did, it was going to come to this. Or, that if it wasn’t this professor, then it would have been someone else.

Also, Kowboy, she never said “raw” — that was your word. You have deliberately and repeatedly misrepresented her in the public sphere; you have deliberately violated her privacy in the most malicious way possible and boy oh boy, I can’t wait until the chickens come home to roost.
Sue Danimm

Also, if anyone is interested, he’s recently (like, yesterday) tried stirring up support over at Stephen King’s website. And he’s again, still naming names, not just the of teacher, but also a student. Despicable.

http://www.stephenking.com/forums/showthread.php/24668-Kicked-Out-for-Homework/page2?s=d95b2c6fc3021d36343663e4b51e30b5
We are watching you, Kowboy

FIRE managed to scrub this letter to Corlett from it’s articles, but the link for the .pdf is still active:

http://thefire.org/public/pdfs/69810e07fbbdf6f984bc80eb6b7d7c9e.pdf?direct

The letter is dated December 7, 2011, and the first line is very telling:

“Starting last January, the university began receiving complaints that your behavior was perceived by female members of the campus community as intimidating and/or threatening . . .”

So, this had been going on for nearly a year, and is not an isolated, innocent incident.

“When taken as a whole, the complaints about your behavior toward women are troubling and must be addressed.”
Concerned Client

Someone (posted as Anonymous Student) earlier in the comments mentioned that they had witnessed first hand multiple other inappropriate and intimidating behavior by Mr. Corlett on campus. This person mentioned they were waiting for the school to request information about Mr. Corlett’s behavior.

I would ask that person or people who have seen these things to come forward and speak to a member of the faculty about what you witnessed. It is a brave thing to come forward to speak out about a peer’s behavior. I can understand your reluctance after reading about Mr. Corlett threats. Please know it is also the right thing to do for your peers and the members of faculty at your school. They after all are your community.

People like Mr. Corlett prey on the discomfort their actions have on other people. They also rely on people’s avoidance with confrontation regarding dealing with those actions. The behavior he has exhibited is sick if not illegal. He may need professional help as his behavior is no longer working for him. This is the conclusion the disciplinary review board for his case came to. I do not think they make recommendations like that lightly.

Lastly, to address Tom Joyce who earlier commented on Mr. Corlett having been married for thirty years and has a history of non-violence as being unlike the Virginia Tech shooter (Seung-Hui Cho). I would agree with your statement that Mr. Corlett’s writing is not as violence focused as the examples of Mr. Cho’s writing I have read. I would add though that Coach Jerry Sandusky, responsible for the current Penn State football scandal has been married to his wife for more than forty years (1966). Mr. Sandusky also had a history of non-violence, and prior to the charges against him, was considered by many to be a pillar of his community unlike apparently Mr. Corlett. Being married for a long period and non-violent would seem not to be quite the exoneration you imply.
Joseph Corlett

“Joe, if you have nothing to hide, why not waive your privacy rights and let us see what happened in the hearing for ourselves? It’s a neat trick you have, offering up your own version of events and then crying foul when anyone challenges that version. So you want YOUR free speech protected, but threaten FERPA violations against everyone else?”

OU Community Member:

That’s an excellent idea. Just one problem, the OU Student Handbook guidelines on hearings do not permit me to do so. I can only take pencil and paper and transcribe by hand the tape recording at the Dean’s office. Obviously if it were my transcription no one would believe it, so what’s the point?

Let’s get OU’s policies changed so I may get a professional stenographer/court reporter to swear that their transcription is accurate. I’d love for the world to hear the repeated denial of evidence and the farce that passed as a hearing, OU does not.
Joseph Corlett

“His work is juvenile and myopic…”

Mr. Kaminski:

True enough, but it earned straight “A’s” at Oakland University. 4.0, 4.0, 3.9, and 3.7.

“Nicely executed”, “Very well done”, “You’ve shown excellent instincts and the ability to convey them elequently.”,”Nice work, You don’t bog down in history or slip into vulgarity. Good balance.”-Pamela Mitzelfeld.
Joseph Corlett

Lauren:

You may think me a creep as is your right, but I’m betting you’re just jealous that you didn’t get REPEATED invitations to the library study group with the other women as did I.
Joseph Corlett

As to my proposed panty proclivity, perhaps a splash of context.

It’s one of the highest viewed posts on a writer’s forum. A writer would never make things up just to drive page views, now would he?

I just won the Flash Fiction contest over there too.

Speaking of winning, I took fourth place in the 2009-2010 Oakland Community College Essay Contest out of about a thousand entrants. Apparently some English professors think I’ve got some chops. Of course, my subject was my infatuation with a woman, a Renior at the Detroit Institute of Arts.

http://www.oaklandcc.edu/essay/Docs/essays_10/Joseph%20Corlett%20-%20Edited%20Essay.pdf
Not Lolita

If you want to appeal your case in the court[s] of public consumption that is, so far, your right. As you say it’s not unheard of for, “a writer would never make things up just to drive page views,” so forgive us for not knowing the whole story or being skeptical of the >1/2 that’s been presented over how many places now Joe?

Seems to me that that 3 hours of transcription would have been done by now and mitigated the need to try and raise armies of ill-informed angry villagers [and page viewers??] in attempt to loft your cause over the hallowed walls. There is no need for the continued “wolf” crying when it is entirely within your ability to prove out your claims as well as perhaps ending that whole panties theft fact/fiction claim by having your clients sign on to affidavits, disposing us of the foundational notion that you did indeed take them and write about it, by swearing that they are [were] not missing any at the time period in question.
Ramon Rodgridez

Hey Joe,

I read your “4th place” winning essay. True, it addressed a female, but not in the explicit way you did in your daybook entry. Also, “Renior” isn’t a real woman, so that doesn’t count. Your teacher is real. That’s the difference.
Robert

Hahaha, Joe. You can’t backtrack on your message board comments now that they aren’t convenient to be attached to your name. Nice try, buddy.

I love how you felt the need to come back on this site and reply to the overwhelming amount of evidence against you. It seems you only chose about four concerns to address, however, and you did so mostly by trying to divert our criticism away from the real issue.

No one gives a damn about what grades you got in your class. Frankly, your repeated focus on the grades just makes you seem hilariously out of touch. You’re missing the point.

And to suggest that someone was jealous for not getting to hang out with you?! HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

While I think you’re a deplorable individual, I must say you’ve been an endless supply of amusement for many of us. Your delusion is unparalleled.
Fact finder

Corlett, it says your cited OCC essay was “edited for publication.” I’m guessing it probably was more explicit in its original form. (or maybe it was just in need of work from an editor.) And if that’s the case, where is your journal entry ranting against the “censorship loving,” “first amendment disgracing” people of Oakland Community College?

http://www.oaklandcc.edu/essay/2009-10.aspx
Note Joe’s self-identification as “a member of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Rifle Association.”

All the other essayists just said they were married, liked the Red Wings, or enjoyed playing XBox in their brief bios.
Michael J Kaminski

Joe – I said in an earlier post (than the one of mine you chose to cite) that your grades were very impressive. Of course, I was being sarcastic. As Robert said above, your constant need to list those four numbers is pretty funny. Also, the difference between submitting a piece for a class, in the realm of academia, and submitting a piece in the real world is entirely different. Your 4.0s and such will pale in comparison to the writing of real writers.
Grad Student

Joe –

As you are a returning mature student, I would venture to guess that you enjoy the learning process in addition to perusing your formal education goals. While you are not as busy with school assignments due to the current situation, a little research into the following subject areas may prove enlightening for you on an intrapersonal level:

1) Cognitive distortions

2) Antisocial personality disorder

3) Narcissistic personality disorder

Wikipedia is acceptable as a source, and I do not expect APA style formatting on any responses.
Grad Student

Darn spell check! My intended word was “pursuing” not “perusing” although ironically perusing is what I needed more of before posting.

Note to Joe: acknowledgement of individual error when it occurs is part of what makes up a healthy personality. A lack of that acknowledgment in an individual is one of the signs that there one or more personality defects. You will learn more about that specific subject with your research assignment.
Not Lolita

Note to Grad Student: Given all the discussion about the bias potential, the lopsidedness; the as Joe accurately says, “make things up just to drive page views” potential, how do we know that “mistake” you acknowledged was not purposeful? Mind you it’s not an accusation at all but given the speculation surrounding the whole cloth, well….
Grad Student

I would be willing to wager this extended comment thread will be the best work that Joe Corlett contributes to in his writing career. The thread certainly has some classic elements of intrigue, humor, pain, anger, and most of all absurdity. There has been a cost for all this reading for those unfortunate enough to experience Joe firsthand though, and for me as a spectator this is where the fun stops.

I truly empathize with the professors and students who suffered from their interaction with the individual in question. What lead up to this was not fun or funny for them. I have been through something related and frankly, it sucks and stays with you for some time. I wish them all the best in putting this behind them.

Joe has made his own bed and due to the web’s capacity to retain information, he will deal with the repercussions for the rest of his life. I do not feel bad for him in regards to that whatsoever. He is an adult and appears to be aware of his actions enough to be held accountable for them.

I will conclude with this comment directed at the person responsible for all of this:

Joe, you have demonstrated yourself to be a terrible human being in what you have done and what you continue to do in regards to this matter. You likely need some professional psychological help. Please get some, for everyone’s sake including your own. I really do not want to read about you in a couple months or years from now being responsible for some non-random tragedy. You know the ones I mean right? The ones where people wonder in internet threads what they could have done differently and there are many discussions about missed warning signs that might have prevented it.
S. Minnix

I love when someone tells me I am too “emotionally invested in this to think as a journalist”. I thought I was just giving my unbiased two cents. I especially like when people make assumptions such as Daniel. It gives me lots of fuel to the fire.

Now then, I just read the .pdf file from up above. It said that starting in January there was problems with what Mr. Corlett was doing. January?!?!? This happened in December! If there was that much of a problem, my main question continues to be…WHY WASN’T ANYTHING DONE EARLIER? Surely if he did all that was said in Snyder’s letter, there would have been a much bigger conflict here.

I can’t speak for what he’s wrote on other message boards. It does show a pattern, and the right to privacy is compromised when on an Internet setting. But you can’t take away a person’s right to have a free mind. That is, there are almost 20,000 students at Oakland U. How many of them do you think have skeletons in their closet? Are we going to start psychiatric evaluations on every prospective student that wants to be admitted here?

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree with what Mr. Corlett did AT ALL. I think he did not use proper common sense when submitting his assignment. Most people that I have discussed this situation with said he should have been given a zero. I can even understand why the university went with a multi-semester ban. But I think expulsion may be a little too harsh. Like I have said, far too many questions and I do believe this could have been handled differently.

I worked at The Post and I believe I remember the article about the Open Carry. What people need to remember is that The Oakland Post has done many articles on that subject, including a staff editorial by editor-in-chief (and a wonderful reporter too!) Colleen Miller. This has been a hot topic for many years and will continue to be. Just because he wrote an editorial supporting the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms does not mean so much.

However, I can completely see where women would be offended by talk such as Mr. Corlett’s. I know OU is supposed to be a “marketplace of ideas”, but is this type of talk really necessary on a college campus? Does it really serve anyone a bit of good?

Women are not inanimate sex objects or pieces of meat. From what I have read on a few of his posts, even though he’s married, it almost seems like he thinks that way. I do hope that this gets resolved without a lot of litigation, but I just don’t think it will.

It’s a shame, but I am still proud to be a Golden Grizzly. To me, there is no better school in this state. I am 32 myself. I came back after several years to get advanced training to find a better job. The training from the faculty at OU has been second to none. I appreciate the risk OU took in admitting me to the university, and I thank them for the opportunity to learn.
paula f

I don’t think anyone mentioned psychiatric evaluations for perspective students. However I would be all for evaluations of current students who go through harassment and intimidation disciplinary hearings, get suspended, and still appear to lack an ability to comprehend anyone’s viewpoint of the said events outside of their own.

Lately I have seen enough middle aged to older men in academic libraries who don’t seem to do much studying of anything other than the breasts of the undergraduate females located near them. Perhaps it is the lousy job market? Whatever the case, it is at best rude, usually creepy, and sometimes a little frightening.
Daniel

S Minnix,

You’ve prefaced all of your opinions with, “I’m a journalist. I’m objective,” but then followed with comments that show how emotionally invested you are since you’re an OU student who is upset that this has happened to his school. You wouldn’t be assigned to ever write about this case because of your close proximity to the subject and your prior employment at The Post.

I’m continually confused by your all caps question of “WHY WASN’T ANYTHING DONE EARLIER?” Are you asking why we, the public, didn’t know about this earlier?

The timeline of events shows that the university was methodical about going through the process of an investigation, a hearing with a panel of students and professors, and all of the guidelines established to deal with academic issues like this. If things were rushed to a conclusion, then there might be a case that it wasn’t given its due diligence.

What would you have liked to happen? Forgive me for not quite understanding your outrage still.
paula f

Looks like someone provided a different opinion of Joe over on that Stephen King thread:

http://www.stephenking.com/forums/showthread.php/24668-Kicked-Out-for-Homework/page2?s=d95b2c6fc3021d36343663e4b51e30b5

It’s like a whack-a-mole game…Joe pops up with his version and someone else posts what actually happened.
S. Minnix

From what it shows in the .pdf file, it shows that this was going on for about a year. I guess then the question becomes when does it become a pattern–and when does it become grounds for dismissal? That’s where I get the question about “WHY WASN’T ANYTHING DONE EARLIER?”.

Things would have been much more clear had the professor clearly stated what was out of bounds and what wasn’t. Again though, this goes into the “common sense” doctrine that I was talking about. He SHOULD be able to grasp what and what not to write in a campus classroom. He SHOULD know what not to do.

Then again, the professor gave him nearly straight A’s here on the other four assignments, some with sexual overtones in them. I am not trying to defend the actions of Corlett, but I have to try and be objective.

What would I have liked to happen? I think the professor should have came out and said something immediately, and not gave him the 4.0′s on the assignments. Maybe issue a warning first, unless it was a particularly egregious act.

I wouldn’t want to write about this story. Not that I don’t like sensational news (which I consider this, as it has made national headlines now), but giving this situation more press is terrible. There are far bigger things going on in the world.

I am upset because I know that Mr. Corlett will go all the way with this, and the university (again) will be broiled in another controversy. Oakland should be known for much more than that. It’s a school that is on the rise as I have said before. It should be known for the GOOD things that Golden Grizzly nation has to offer. Not for continuous lawsuits and litigation.

It will cost a great deal of money (earmarked or not) that could have went to far better uses. While this does happen at other universities, this situation I feel could have been avoided. She could have given him 0.0′s across the board and been done with it. I feel I have the right to that opinion, Daniel. Take it as you wish.

And just so you know, I don’t defend Corlett’s actions. What he did in my opinion was wrong. But I do believe there is a semblance of “free speech” involved here. Is this truly a violation of creativity? Or was his language over the top? It’s a questions for the courts to decide. I don’t have the answer for that.

All I know is that NO ONE WINS HERE. You’ve yet to show me anything to prove otherwise. There’s no silver lining in a lawsuit. And no, this does not help Grizzly nation.
S. Roberts

There is no lawsuit to win and there won’t be either. Very few lawyers would be allowing there client to present their case in the media like this with litigation planned. This is nothing other than a trial by media and that was likely the plan all along, or at least once FIRE realized there was nothing to take up legally.

If there had a chance of an financial award in a prospective case, rest assured that would have been the first thing we heard from FIRE. The winner in this case incidentally is FIRE as they got lots of press for little work, and one would assume more donations for their cause.

Joe sure isn’t going anywhere with this, and he won’t be back on OU campus anytime soon. There probably aren’t a lot of universities or colleges outside of the for-profit ones like University of Phoenix that would want him as a transfer student at this point either.

Then again, even UofP might see his history and think him too big of a liability to take on as a prospective student.
Sue Danimm

Seems to me that Mr. Corbett is setting HIMSELF up for some serious litigation, the way he’s been naming, mischaracterizing, and slandering so many people in the past few weeks. A thread on the Chronicle forum, since removed, cited Michigan laws that offer significant compensation to victims of such intimidation campaigns. I hope the professor hires herself a barracuda of a lawyer and seeks justice for all the damage he’s done to her reputation and her privacy. He feels like a victim now? Just you wait, Kowboy.

Let us not forget that REAL damage has been done here, to a valued and beloved professor, and that that REAL damage can never be undone. Those of you who have searched the discussion threads even a little bit — you know what I mean. She asked for none of this. She deserves none of this. OU can recover; can the professor? Mr. Corbett has a lot of damage to answer for. A lot.
Sue Danimm

Excuse me, I misspoke. I don’t know about compensation for victims of harassment campaigns (not sexual harassment, mind you, just the good, old fashioned intimidation), but according to Michigan statues:

750.411s. Posting messages through electronic medium without consent

is a felony. The definition of such harassment would certainly seem to fit this case, as it certainly describes Mr. Corlett’s behavior. Just sayin.

http://www.womenslaw.org/statutes_detail.php?statute_id=6773#statute-top
Not Lolita

I guess the ALL CAPS is condicio sine qua non for journalist now?

“All I know is that NO ONE WINS HERE. You’ve yet to show me anything to prove otherwise. There’s no silver lining in a lawsuit. And no, this does not help Grizzly nation.”

Seems Like Joe you don’t understand the offense and action taken. Assuming all was right and proper with the decision to remove then those who brought forward the complaint[s] (Grizzly citizens all I dare say) WINS as do all those spared from any further PATTERN VICTIMS win. That to me my friend means someone wins.
Nicole Friel

I reread some of Joe’s latest postings. I don’t think he realizes just how funny and pathetic trying to brag about writing chops with a sentence like this is:

“Speaking of winning, I took fourth place in the 2009-2010 Oakland Community College Essay Contest…”

Fourth place…and at a local community college no less…like OMG, that’s almost like a positive write up in NY Times Sunday Book Review right?…right?

Keep swinging for the fences there big guy and wishing on those stars. Just don’t give your creepy musings to the innocent people you wrote them about in future, and expect someone not to do anything about it.
Nicole Friel

and seriously, who tries to vindicate themselves when accused of harassing and intimidating someone with their writing with a rebuttal based around the relative merits of the writing in question?

the words cognitive distortion and delusional came up earlier…man oh man, he has that in spades.

go home, write an heartfelt apology, and hope your community has a short memory and/or is feeling gracious.
We are watching you, Kowboy

@Nicole

Heh – your quote from Corlett reminds me of somebody else who ranted “Winning!” all over the place.

How did that turn out?

BTW – the folks at the Stephen King board have outed him as well.

Pathetic.
We are watching you, Kowboy

Excellent read at the Philadelphia Post “Phillymag”:

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2012/02/24/teachers-prefer-grade-essays-sexy/

“Let’s get real here: This is yet another self-deluded jackwagon wrapping himself in the Constitution. Neither free speech nor creative writing gives a person the right to intimidate, harass or threaten without consequences. If I walked into the Philly Mag offices and asked a co-worker if she was wearing a new bra because she looked “stacked” today, her next move should be a visit to human resources. When Corlett included Mitzelfeld in his long list of women he fantasizes about, he crossed a line. Ironically, for all his talk of being distracted by his teachers, I imagine it’s Mitzelfeld who couldn’t concentrate in class if she knew Corlett was on the lookout for a wardrobe malfunction.”

I became interested in this story when I read it in the Daily Mail (UK). I was terribly shocked that the Professor’s name and photo were spread all over the web.

When it became clear that this smear was part and parcel to the pathetic “campaign” by Corlett and F.I.R.E., I became incensed. I still am.

I find it ironic that a “free speech” organization chose as their name the very word that is not protected by the 1st amendment – Google “shouting FIRE in a crowded theater”.

It is also terribly ironic that any “victory” the miserable Corlett will achieve is but more of “PC enforcement”. Because you are so callous, crude, and lack any shred of human empathy, OU and other organizations will be forces to spell out, in excruciating detail, what behavior, actions, etc., will not be acceptable. Corlett, through his own perverse greed, has made the politically correct world all the more restricted and creates more paranoia for anyone who may make a truly innocent remark that may impugn them as the equivalent of the gutter slime that Corlett actually is.

I hope that any new rules to deflect the disgusting behavior Corlett thrives on will be named after him. Then, perhaps, he will have the sick, self-serving fame he desperately seeks.

Corlett, you seek pathetically seek sympathy for actions which most any socialized human would find repugnant. It seems very clear that you were seeking offended reaction by the Professor.

Where is your own empathy?

Or, are you happy that you have brought misery to the Professor?
Joseph Corlett

I want to take an opportunity to thank OU Dean of Students, Glenn McIntosh, for his very helpful email of November 15, 2011, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act:

“…I am totally dismayed by her (Mitzelfeld’s) continuous inaccurate characterizations and attacks… Since Corlett has not made any threats to anyone…”

http://thefire.org/public/pdfs/cab0e8aaaf3f80aacf5209e7ca92240c.pdf?direct

Unfortunately, repeated threats have been made. Threats to the rights of students by Oakland University according to Gillian Talwar, Oakland ACLU Lawyer’s Committee Chair, in a January 23, 2012 email: “…this is not the first complaint we have received recently about Oakland University and its exclusionary policies and practice.”

So OU admits in writing that I haven’t threatened anyone and the ACLU admits in writing that OU repeatedly threatens student’s rights.
Justin Hen

Perhaps you tired Midwesterners need some comic relief about this not so funny situation. Visit http://justanothercluckinghen.wordpress.com/rooster-roast-not-so_quotable-quotes-from-rooten-roosters-and-hens/, where I cover this issue as part of my new blog about media coverage of contested issues. The controversy at your institution encouraged me to launch this site and to serve as a media mediator of sorts. I hope you find it fair, fastidious, and, when appropriate, fun.

I also recommend the Philly piece for what it is worth.
The Public

No one cares, Joe. Even if you were right, the way you’ve gone about this is just laughable and counterproductive. Your 15 minutes are up.
We are watching you, Kowboy

Nice try, Corlett.

Very duplicitous of you to link two independent clauses together which have nothing to do with each other.

It’s clear that the Dean was referring to “characterizations and attacks” upon himself for the response of OU to the complaint against you.

As far as your threats, the Dean was referring to an OVERT threat, which does in no way exonerate your observed and reported YEAR LONG behavior.

“Starting last January, the university began receiving complaints that your behavior was perceived by female members of the campus community as intimidating and/or threatening . . .”

You are also mixing up complaints and threats with your lame referral to a purported ACLU memo. It’s noteworthy that the ACLU has chosen to ignore you.

I will be watching other sites where you have spammed this message. I imagine that Stephen King will ignore you as well.

Give it up, loser
Sue Danimm

Nice of you to publish the Dean’s private cellphone number without his permission, Joe. Did you check on the legality of that?

And what is your response to the Dec 7 OU letter noting that the administration had been receiving complaints about your “intimidating and threatening” behavior for a FULL YEAR prior to this incident? I note that you don’t mention that fact in any of your trolling, nor on the Fox shoutfest, nor to MSNBC, nor anywhere.
Not Loilta

Do me a favor Joe. I looked and could not find any of those ACLU complaints, the actions they took, or the outcome[s]. Be a dear and provide links or something. When you’ve done that perhaps some more context to the link you did provide above would be in order. Yes, it is true it does say what you quoted, but you seemed to have left off the end of the sentence for some reason as well as the larger context of what events did happen that could involve administrative withdrawal [assuming what it means in this instance; perhaps you could expound on that too] and what occurred after. I’m sure being after Truth and Freedom you will oblige us with those small favors, yes?
anonymous

i figured this would be coming for joe at some point:

http://www.xtranormal.com/xtraplayr/13094530/jc-the-victim

what was that the first rule of holes? when you find yourself in one stop digging or something like that.