Candid O'Malley

A recent court filing contained some highly unflattering descriptions of former UFS chair and PSC executive committee member Susan O’Malley. Readers learned that some consider O’Malley:

• “a person of vicious, disreputable, criminal, and ‘terrorist’ character, who supports ‘terrorist’ activities at the present time in the United States, who actively goes out of her way to assist convicted criminals without regard for the CUNY academic community, who acts purely for her own selfish reasons, and not for the best interests of the academic community, who believes in those who practice or preach terrorism or violence and murder and has the ability or influence to secure jobs for criminals and ‘terrorists’ instead of and at the expense of decent upstanding citizens and law-abiding Americans.”

• “a thief, a person of dishonest and disreputable character, who works for her own selfish interests and against the best interests of the CUNY academic community, who improperly takes money and/or dues from the PSC and uses them for her own benefit, and further a person who dislikes and looks down on her academic colleagues and staff.”

• “unscholarly, lacking scholarly excellence, and characterize[es] her academic achievements dishonestly.”

• “a person of lazy and disreputable character, and who was working for her own selfish interests . . . She dislikes teaching, mistrusts her staff and colleagues, and is in all respects a person who has failed to contribute anything of value to her students, CUNY governance, and the CUNY academic community.”

• “a person of disreputable character, who participated in a demonstration in front of Chancellor Goldstein’s home and who advocated demonstrations of no value or merit for her own interest and against the interest of the CUNY academic community.”

None of those descriptions of O’Malley came from Sharad Karkhanis, the person that O’Malley is suing for $2 million in a lawsuit that she herself has described as “very, very silly.” Indeed, apart from the word “terrorists”—Karkhanis’ description of Susan Rosenberg and Mohammed Yousry, both of whom were convicted of terrorist-related activity—none of those words appeared in any Karkhanis publication to describe O’Malley.

Instead, these descriptions of O’Malley all come from O’Malley’s attorney, Joseph Martin Carasso, an entertainment law specialist that O’Malley prevailed upon to file her “very, very silly” lawsuit. Given that Carasso’s descriptions of O’Malley are far more severe than anything Karkhanis has written about her, will Carasso be next in line to experience an O’Malley lawsuit?

Perhaps that’s why Carasso had demanded—in what would be an extraordinary provision—a court order that “all pleadings, papers, exhibits and other matters filed with the Court in this action be sealed.”

Publius

O'Malley v. Karkhanis: the Complaint

A recent posting in Mitchell Langbert’s blog, “...Does Mad Magazine Defame?” provides the greater part of the text of the full complaint in the libel case of O’Malley v. Karkhanis. If, as Publius notes below, “Sue” wins the day, lampooning will be illegal at CUNY, and soon across the American academy. O’Malley’s suit may be “silly,” but the implications are not.

Brutus

Silencing Sharad Won't Be Simple

At the Democracy Project blog, Phil Ornstein recounts Sharad Karkhanis’ decades-long efforts in the cause of free speech in India and the United States. Phil also reminds us that this is not the first time that Susan O’Malley has tried to silence her most effective (and amusing) critic:

“In 1996, faculty union official and former chair of the CUNY Faculty Senate, Professor Susan O’Malley ordered Karkhanis to stop publication of TPR. Fearing repercussions to their careers, other critics bowed to O’Malley’s repressive exploits but Karkhanis refused to be silenced.”

If Sharad was willing to run the risk of disagreeing with Indira Ghandi, he is well able face the wrath of CUNY’s “Dear Leader” and Prof. “Sue.” The latter would be well advised to drop her "silly" lawsuit soon.

Brutus

O'Malley's Curious Claim

In recent years, Sharad Karkhanis has mocked PSC head Barbara Bowen as the “Dear Leader.” The details of former UFS chair/PSC executive committee member Susan O’Malley’s complaint against Karkhanis (in a case that O’Malley herself has termed “very, very silly”) suggests that absolutist tendencies aren’t confined to the union’s leader.

Indeed, the complaint is chilling, essentially suggesting that expressing skepticism about the PSC/UFS leadership’s motives—even in the context of election campaigns—constitutes grounds for a defamation suit.

Portions of O’Malley’s complaint—penned by entertainment attorney Joseph Martin Carasso—appear to be based on the premise that the court system should be used not to redress grievances but to bolster a client’s self-esteem.

Carasso tells the court that:

• “SUSAN O’MALLEY is a distinguished scholar and teacher”;

• O’Malley “has many friends and associates among her fellow faculty”;

• O’Malley “has served with distinction in various CUNY university and governance roles”
  

• His client received a UFS resolution honoring “her great humanity and her intelligence, and acclaiming SUSAN O’MALLEY as a worthy and eminent leader.”

• “SUSAN O’MALLEY worked hard for her achievements”

• “SUSAN O’MALLEY’S life has been devoted to teaching, scholarly research, and governance at KCC and CUNY.”

• “SUSAN O’MALLEY had a distinguished career as a scholar and teacher, and has made outstanding contributions to university governance and to the Faculty Staff Union.”

Is it O’Malley’s belief that to publicly challenge any of these cozy descriptions of herself constitutes defamation?

Perhaps because his background is in the entertainment world—where shameless flattery is the order of the day—rather than libel law, Carasso went overboard, and in the process appears to have fatally undermined his client’s already feeble case. Included in Carasso’s paeans to O’Malley is this highly revealing clause:

SUSAN O’MALLEY has acquired and retained a high standing and reputation among the CUNY academic community for her advocacy of high academic standards and accessibility of higher education, her humanity and intelligence. [emphasis added]

O’Malley’s entire lawsuit is based on a claim that Karkhanis’ allegedly defamatory attacks have ruined her reputation. Yet here is her own attorney affirming—under, he writes, penalty of perjury—that O’Malley retains “a high standing and reputation among the CUNY academic community.”

So what, exactly, is her case?

No wonder O’Malley has termed her action a “very, very silly” lawsuit.

Publius

O'Malley at the MLA: Defamed, but not Discouraged.

Despite claims that Sharad Karkhanis has caused her profound psychic and professional harm, CUNY’s Prof. “Sue” has been rather busy at the 2007 meeting of the MLA. The Radical Caucus in English and Modern Languages presented two resolutions to that body’s Delegate Assembly: one on Zionism; the other on Ward Churchill. Since “Sue” serves as the RC’s Executive Director, we presume that both resolutions express her sentiments, and as such should be shared with her admiring public:

On Zionism and its critics:

“Whereas some organizations and individuals have urged that faculty, writers and speakers who criticize Zionism and Israeli policies be denied tenure, disinvited to speak, speak only when “balanced” by a pro-Zionist speaker, or be fraudulently called “anti-Semitic”; and

Whereas this constitutes a serious danger to academic study and discussion in the USA today,

Resolved that the MLA defend the Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech of faculty and invited speakers to criticize Zionism and Israel.”

On Ward Churchill:

“Whereas, upon criticism of Professor Ward Churchill for his remarks concerning the 9/11 attacks, the University of Colorado initiated proceedings against him, and investigations of his scholarly work, and removed him from his directorship of the Ethnic Studies Dept. and subsequently from his tenured teaching position, and

Whereas such acts of retribution threaten free expression in the university setting, particularly against those in historically marginalized disciplines,

Be it resolved that the Modern Language Association condemns this action of the President and Regents of the University of Colorado.”

That the radical “Sue” would rally to the support of Ward Churchill is not surprising. Nor is the anti-Israel bias of a long standing member of the PSC’s New Caucus and Executive Board. But O’Malley’s asymmetric approach to issues of free speech is astonishing. While her attorney is filing a full civil complaint for libel and defamation in New York, she is running through the corridors at Chicago’s Hyatt Regency and shouting that academic freedom is in jeopardy! Not bad for someone who, supposedly, has been sorely wounded by Sharad’s virtual slings and arrows. We marvel at her recuperative powers, or perhaps at her hubris.

Brutus

A Thinly Veiled Attack on a Trustee?

Today’s number of Inside Higher Ed includes a feature on the recent meeting of the Modern Language Association, in particular on debates within the MLA’s Delegate Assembly over resolutions defending the academic freedom of campus critics of policies and politics in the Middle East. A resolution by Montclair State University’s Grover Furr called on the MLA to “defend the academic freedom and the freedom of speech of faculty and invited speakers to criticize Zionism and Israel” but did not refer to the Jewish state’s supporters. The resolution that prevailed acknowledged that the Middle East was a subject of “intense debate,” and stated that it was “essential that colleges and universities protect faculty rights to speak forthrightly on all sides of the issue.”

Among the voices heard in these exchanges was that of our favorite defender of free speech, Prof. "Sue," who also happens to be the Executive Director of the MLA's Radical Caucus. “Susan O’Malley, a professor of English at Kingsborough Community College of the City University of New York, said that CUNY’s trustees tried to prevent an adjunct at her campus from teaching the novel The Scar of David. CUNY officials could not be reached for comment, but press accounts suggest that the book was in fact taught.”

As by all other reports it seemed to have been. Since O’Malley is such a stickler for facts, and so willing to file libel suits against her critics, her comments in Chicago are particularly odd. Was she making a mistake when representing events at Kingsborough? If so, she owes the unnamed members of CUNY’s Board of Trustees an apology. Or was she continuing her personal, and the PSC’s political, feud with Trustee Jeffrey Wiesenfeld? If so, perhaps Mr. Wiesenfeld might want to consider legal action against her.

Brutus

Will Bowen Now Go After THE JEWISH PRESS?

Chief among the actions that have landed Sharad Karkhanis in civil court has been The Patriot Returns! 's systematic exposure of “Sue” O’Malley’s and the Professional Staff Congress’s support for unsavory characters and radical causes. The case that he so effectively made is amplified and documented in the December 19th number of The Jewish Press. In a feature entitled “CUNY Professors Decry Their Union’s Anti-Israel, Anti-American Activities,” Elliot Resnick substantiates many of the claims that have been made by Sharad, in particular the close connections between Barbara Bowen and Michael Letwin.

Given her public commitments to free speech and freedom of the press, we wonder how soon it will be before Bowen threatens The Jewish Press with an O’Malley-style lawsuit.

Brutus