Arbitrary and Capricious Evaluation
Exposé on Academic Corruption and Denial of Human Rights
at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY and University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Compromised principles for personal gain and academic advantage without merit.
Rensselaer H&SS/LL&C did not subscribe to philosophy established in universities over centuries. Program descriptions blatantly misrepresented actual offerings and the department had neither qualified faculty members nor computer resources to support a technical and graphic communication program. Dogmatic ideologies and indifference to both logic and evidence undermined any coherent scholarly dialogue. The department neither valued reason nor allowed an open intellectual life for fear that students would expose them as academic frauds.
It took inexperienced students several years to realize how RPI had swindled them. Too late to do anything about it, they found that they had no recourse. They had to make a living and to pay the exorbitant tuition bills that had accumulated for a piece of paper that had virtually no more intellectual worth than a degree obtained from an Internet diploma mill.
The students who recognized the swindle either acquiesced to it as a means to obtain the degree and leave or drew attention to the anomalies and distortion which resulted in unceremonious character assassination and contrived expulsion. Potential students to H&SS/LL&C who recognized the fraud decided to enroll in more ethical programs at other universities, probably saving thousands of dollars in the process.
|
Successful |
 |
|
H&SS/LL&C failed to conform with university regulations and deliberately violated state and federal laws. The department appointed Camillus Lee Odell as sole advisor for all new PhD students despite his having no demonstrated experience or knowledge in technical and graphic communication. Odell then arbitrarily decided in advance with whom he would work and allow to graduate based upon ethnic and commercial considerations regardless of merit. He then manipulated the process and grades to achieve his objectives.
No academic freedom existed as a result of that manipulation and the faculty maintained absolute ideological control over students to cover outside interests. Some students paid three-years tuition in excess of $100,000 at current rates and never met with a qualified adviser. They could just as well have walked onto campus each day and completed their research at the campus library without charge. They probably would have learned more and had more enthusiastic support from librarians than they received from LL&C faculty.
Traditional academic tenets uphold rational discourse as the foundation of academic life in a free and democratic society. The author, a professor of technical and graphic communication and verbal and visible language before moving to RPI, already held international terminal degree equivalencies and had about forty years technical communication experience. He founded the first, later the largest, group of technical communication corporations in London in the late 1950s and designed and sold a desktop publishing system in the early 1970s. His qualifications and experience immediately showed him that the H&SS/LL&C technical and graphic communication program amounted to nothing more a than a fraud staffed by an incompetent faculty controlled by a cabal.
To boost a virtually non-existent technical and graphic communication program, the cabal exhibited as student work the author’s typographic system design portfolio developed over many years as an industry consultant. That portfolio contained many interesting documents selected from probably thousands produced using cutting-edge technology in more than forty years of graphic art and systems design. [Significant Publications]
One of the misrepresentations related to A Catalog of the Cary Collection of Playing Cards (Four Volumes), produced during 1970s and published in 1981 by Yale University Library. The four books contained text in eighteen different languages that required digital typesetting. The author spent several years and many thousands of dollars to develop special interfaces for prototype equipment in both UK and US to overcome the multiple language problems inherent in specialized book production.
[Overview of Cary Playing Card Collection]
Equipment, software and research did not exist for typesetting so many languages in a single set of books in esoteric mediaeval dialects with many diacritical characters. The author researched the languages and developed the technology to meet digital typesetting needs. That paradigm led to typographic encoding which two decades later supported desktop publishing systems.
The author loaned the portfolio as an example of technical and graphic communication for an academic conference on the understanding that the faculty clearly represented it as professional and not academic work. H&SS/LL&C fraudulently exhibited it as “student work” despite specific objections by the author. Moreover, they used the author's credentials to cover up promotion of other non-existent programs in consort with H&SS Dean Thomas Phelan and RPI Graduate Dean Gary Judd.
Detailed case studies explain the Machiavellian principles that governed doctoral students except the easy riders who operated under a commercial mandate. A majority of the students graduated through a policy of controlled or coerced attrition. Out of an average intake of fifteen doctoral students a year only three or four graduated. A study of dissertations and examination of records shows that about half of those who graduated received easy rider degrees through either business connections or nepotism. [Easy Riders]
Most students had no department computer access or office space and had to spend thousands of dollars for computers and software at Radio Shack so that they could operate from home. The library would only allow use of a desk for one semester. Academically, the students probably paid the highest price ever charged for recycled garbage. [Weasel Summation]
A majority of doctoral students had no research support whatsoever for two or three years. In fact, no technical support existed in a department of rhetoric established for many years which misrepresented its mission as technical and graphic communication. However, it willingly granted doctorates to people connected with commercial contracts for over two decades for financial gain.
Doctoral students, already professors with years of teaching experience, had to spend their time listening to inexperienced and unqualified tyro faculty. Former department chair S. Michael Halloran staffed some graduate classes with teaching assistants who held only baccalaureate degrees. When questioned about that anomaly, Halloran explained it away by saying that they had two baccalaureate degrees each. One must conclude in simple mathematical terms that two baccalaureate degrees equal one masters and that three baccalaureate degrees equal a doctorate!
In other universities, PhD students with superior experience and qualifications to the general student intake team teach. RPI granted the author adjunct faculty credentials to teach a graduate program at IBM. However, the LL&C faculty precluded him from team teaching probably for fear of exposure of their professorial inadequacy, incompetence, and machination. Instead of collegial reciprocity they collectively decided upon career destruction in which they have persisted for more than two decades.
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Big Mama and her Leprechauns at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute hold ultimate responsibility for multiple violation of civil and human rights. |
|||
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
The course summation by Merrill D. Whitburn, department chair for nineteen years, fairly represents the low standard of education and teaching attained by faculty members for required doctoral courses in technical communication. However, compared with outrageous presentations made by David L. Carson and Robert Krull, Whitburn’s published summation excelled in its use of Isocrates’ style marked by flowing cadence, complex sentence structure, and frequent use of antithesis to thoroughly obfuscate meaning. [Weasel Summation]
Teresa Marie Harrison typified the neophyte professors in H&SS/LL&C. She had graduated four years before with a masters and doctorate in “speech”. She had inadequate teaching experience and certainly no knowledge of technical and graphic communication. She held her job by acceding to the political whims of Odell who controlled all doctoral students. The faculty allowed him to make deals and abuse students at will.
Evaluation and grading did not depend upon academic achievement; instead, it relied upon politically tainted reference bases fueled by casual observation and innuendo. Grading and graduation depended upon economic criteria or political expedience, not merit.
Although Rensselaer student rights and responsibilities mandate that a professor in the classroom or in conference shall encourage free student discussion, inquiry, expression, and reasoned exception to data or views, any attempt to apply those rights met with ridicule and capricious grading. Professors favored a dogmatic ideology which covered up an inability to discourse or to accept a challenge to sometimes outrageous and often sexist claims. One can sometimes accept dogmatism in hard science environments but in humanities it predominantly relates to the dysfunction of the instructor.
Students have the right to learn about the grading procedures and standards. Performance in course work requires evaluation on an academic basis not on opinions or conduct in matters unrelated to academic standards. Students need protection through orderly procedures against prejudiced or capricious evaluation in retaliation for their point of view.
Faculty did not determine appropriate evaluation criteria or inform students of them in writing at the beginning of the course or decide the extent to which each student had met those criteria at the end of the course.
Academic grading policies usually require that students receive mid-semester information from professors. Without it students remain unaware of their standing relative to the class as a whole and leaves the whole evaluation process open to abuse. The lack of information allowed the arbitrary grading to which cabal professors gravitated. They could unpleasantly surprise those whom they despised with arbitrary grades released after final examination without giving students an opportunity to respond.
Professors arbitrarily determined and assigned grades a priori so that the easy riders would receive a specific grade and then determined grades for targeted students in consort with other faculty members which depended upon political expedience at any given time - a process inimical to academic responsibility and to the rights of the individual.
In several instances grade manipulation resulted from refusal to react to harassment and provocation based upon gender, ethnicity, national origin, and age. In the author’s experience, universities have changed from male-dominated hierarchal institutions into a collection of special interest groups. Instead of feudal guilds, they have become a tribal confederation of special interests by ethnic origin, rank, and gender with H&SS/LL&C apparently leading the way.
Gender balance loses its impetus when female faculty have as their sole purpose an urge to advance extreme feminism. Sycophantic behavior by junior, female tenure-track professors had a sickening cloy to it. In contrast, the same simpering feminists instantly switched to stridency when they wished to abuse or insult students.
With ”proper thinking” and politically correct language they became liberal fascists unable to speak plainly and discourse only for self-interest. They supported radical speech codes to achieve career advancement which seriously impeded free expression. For example, Harrison used a required doctoral course with its captive audience to propound those theories and to use her personal gender problems as classroom criteria to the exclusion of any other notion.
Ethical Governance and Integrity
Integrity and ethics within any graduate faculty rank as the most important factors in the establishment and maintenance of a quality PhD program. Qualified faculty members usually possess an earned doctoral degree in a particular field which enables them to teach, research, and regularly publish their findings in professional journals.
Ethical professors realize a responsibility to maintain in themselves the central values of scholarship: truth, honesty, logical refutation, and intellectual autonomy then promote them in their students by creating an intellectual affinity. Integrity unequivocally governs as the crucial element in that type of relationship which results from strangers meeting and eventually emerging as colleagues not beer-guzzling buddies.
Council of Graduate Schools made three general recommendations to department heads which called for them to implement procedures for all doctoral students to receive information at regular intervals which enabled them to:
1. Meet all prospective dissertation advisers and talk with other students in the program about adviser attributes.
2. Provide students with an annually updated list of graduate students containing their dissertation topics and names of their advisers.
3. Publish a list of graduate faculty with information about their areas of research, publications, and their availability to supervise dissertations.
H&SS/LL&C did not meet any of those needs which allowed a faculty cabal to manipulate both faculty members and students at will and to cover up the lack of scholarship within the program. [Academic Cabalism]
Arbitrary or Capricious Grading
Traditionally, universities have developed procedures which provide a means for students to seek review of final course grades that they allege to be arbitrary or capricious. Generally, such procedures do not review the intellectual judgment of a faculty member or require another faculty member to regrade or reexamine a student’s work. The burden of proof usually rests with the student. Therefore, it becomes absolutely essential to have a fair means of investigating arbitrary or malicious grading.
Those policies, common in many university departments, insure that allegations that inappropriate criteria were used in determining a grade or that the instructor did not adhere to stated procedures or grading standards, receive a fair and unbiased hearing. That avoids the incidence of administrators unilaterally changing grades by usurping the faculty First Amendment prerogative to evaluate students academically.
No such procedures existed in H&SS/LL&C. Instead, faculty members held kangaroo courts in absentia. When a student came to campus to discuss his denial of due process of law they had him arrested on trumped up charges. This exemplified to some degree the use of self-serving dicta instead of formal resolution to determine issues. They prevented access to promulgated procedures in a blatant evasion of civil and human rights to delay then deny due process of law. [Preliminary Injunction]
Legislators and judges have recognized that unlawful or vague definitions, and secret investigation without accountability or due process, lead to the extreme politicization and totalitarian control experienced within H&SS/LL&C where deliberate departmental delays in program completion provided teaching fodder. Denial of promulgated recourse procedures and blackballing destroyed careers and precluded individuals from earning a livelihood.
H&SS/LL&C faculty members and administrators repeatedly committed criminal acts by using a pattern of arbitrary and capricious grading for political expedience. Those acts caused breaches of contract between the university and its students. Graduate students contracted and paid $34,900.00 a year calculated at current rates for a service. Grading forms an essential part of that contract. Any deliberate deviation from the terms of the agreement to provide a degree construes in law as a deliberate and malicious breach of the contract - an intentional tort.
Intentional tort carries with it high punitive damages in mitigation of the conversion of large amounts of money paid by students as tuition without fulfilling contractual terms, especially if the denial predicates upon arbitrary or capricious grading which primarily define as:
1. Assigning a course grade to a student on a basis other than performance in the course.
2. Grading by standards that differ from those applied to other students in the same course.
3. Departing substantially and unreasonably from published course content and standards.
4. Neglecting to provide resources, both professorial and material, for advancement of learning.
By abrogating all four contractual terms, H&SS/LL&C showed a pattern of racketeering defined by Civil Rights Act and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), both federal statutes. RICO provides for extended penalties for organizations that repeatedly commit fraudulent acts. In describing the term “pattern”, RICO provides only that it “requires at least two acts of racketeering activity” within a ten year period. H&SS/LL&C has committed dozens of acts of racketeering over a twenty-year period despite repeated reports to administrators and state officials who either remained wilfully blind or covered up those crimes.
Governance inaction effectively makes university presidents accessories after the fact. RPI repeatedly denied due process of law and participated in kangaroo courts. University officials delayed then denied investigation under both institute regulations and NY state law. They also committed criminal acts under federal law.
Instructors must have academic freedom in evaluation of student performance and RPI faculty has a collective stake in promoting adherence to norms essential to the academic enterprise. RPI governance adopted rules and procedures to foster professional evaluation of student performance and to provide remedies in cases of arbitrary and capricious grading yet it did nothing about the abrogation of them through arbitrary and capricious grading.
A comparison and contrast of regulations governing faculty evaluation and student grading in other universities showed that RPI has ambiguous and arbitrary rules that neither provide due process of law nor protect untenured faculty and students. The university certainly does not have an adequate grievance procedure which allows tenured faculty members and administrators to run amok. Moreover, a collusive ombudsman provides students no recourse whatsoever.
Academic Recourse
|
|
||
|
|
 |
|
|
Thomas Phelan, |
Most universities provide a formal procedure within the academic unit offering the course to address arbitrary or capricious grading. Departments appoint a standing committee of two tenured professors and two graduate level students to hear complaints and appeals.
That procedure did not exist within H&SS/LL&C. Halloran, Odell, or Whitburn arbitrarily dismissed all complaints as frivolous then referred them back to the instructor who caused the problem in the first place, in this case another cabal member. By that, they contravened the rule that does not allow instructors to hear or adjudicate a case against themselves. This created more animosity and the instructor retaliated by arbitrarily changing the record to reflect a lower grade.
Two other instructors followed suit with malicious intent to reduce the cumulative average to an unacceptable level which would disqualify the student from registering for the next semester. Ironically, they failed their math. The outcome entitled the student to register by a margin of one point and their assassination attempt failed which allowed him to live to fight another day.
Their behavior negated the normal procedure for students who wish to challenge evaluation in most universities. Details of those procedures sometimes change from campus to campus but the principles remain the same. Arbitrary and capricious grading appeals always require due process in one form or another. They require review by an entire committee and a decision by a majority so that the committee can either dismiss the appeal or move it forward to a hearing.
Limited grounds for dismissal relate to specific circumstances: that a student has submitted the same complaint to another grievance procedure; that the allegations do not define as arbitrary and capricious grading; that the student filed the appeal too late; or, that the student had not exhausted informal processes.
If a committee dismisses an appeal, then it must notify the student in writing within ten days with specific reasons for the dismissal. If the committee does not dismiss the appeal, then it sends a copy of it to the instructor who must reply in writing to the committee within ten days with an explanation or suggestions for mitigation.
Based on the instructor's reply, the committee decides whether a viable solution exists then mediates between the student and the instructor. Failing satisfactory mediation, then the committee holds a non-adversarial, informal fact-finding meeting with the student and the instructor - neither party represented by advocates.
The committee then meets in camera to determine whether a majority believes that the evidence supports an allegation of arbitrary and capricious grading beyond a reasonable doubt. The committee notifies the student, the instructor, and the Dean of the Graduate School of the decision within five days of their decision.
The committee has the authority to take any action that it believes will bring about substantial justice, including but not limited to directing the instructor to: grade the student’s work again; administer a new final exam or paper; cancel the student's registration for the course; or, award a passing grade. A committee does not have authority to assign a letter grade for the course or reprimand or take disciplinary action against the instructor.
That decision, as far as it concerns the university, becomes final and binding upon both parties and cannot become subject to appeal on that campus. The Dean of the Graduate School must implement the decision of the committee. However, this procedure does not preclude due process of law in an action in a court against the university.
When one considers the Kafkaesque behavior of H&SS/LL&C faculty this sounds to reasonable people like a return to sanity. Experience shows that these procedures do not represent a perfect solution; however, in a democracy they protect the human and civil rights of the individual when confronted by pernicious cabals. Just as importantly, those procedures protect free academic expression especially when one encounters cabals like H&SS/LL&C where no due process or freedom of expression exists.
Professorial Discretion
|
In Memoriam |
||
 |
||
|
David L Carson |
||
Professors with integrity encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students. They hold before them the best scholarly and ethical standards of their discipline. They demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors. They make reasonable effort to foster honest academic conduct and to ensure that evaluation of students reflects true merit.
Instructors have a right to freedom of expression in the classroom and in the assessment of student academic performance, including the assignment of particular grades. However, those grades must comply with ethical principles that include:
1. A faculty that assigns fair and unbiased grades.
2. Administrators that do not enforce their judgment concerning the
xxxxassignment of grades.
3. Faculty committees that review student complaints about grades
xxxxunder procedures adopted and enforced by the university.
The transient nature of students allowed a frivolous H&SS/LL&C policy of “here today, gone tomorrow, why worry” mentality which translated into anarchy. A system of preferential promotion packages for faculty and blackmailing students to do unpaid commercial consulting work translated into grades for sale.
It is one thing for professors to work with students for the common good. It is another for them to blackmail students into doing outside consulting work in return for high grades while charging a high fee, pocketing the income, then recording the work as research for promotion and tenure.
Ethical academic departments develop clear, written policies, governing grading standards and appeal procedures then distribute them to students, faculty members, and administrators. Generally, instructors exercise broad discretion to waive course requirements and administrative officers should only approve exceptions to university-wide rules in accord with promulgated guidelines.
Course instructors have a professional responsibility to submit a grade for every student using only the approved criteria; however, students seldom know their rights and faculty can easily manipulate or coerce them. Extenuating circumstances occasionally occur in unanticipated situations and require special handling.
However, politically correct criteria should not deny justice to others who play by the rules. Exceptions should predicate upon equal opportunity within limits set by faculty governance bodies not on ethnic or gender preferences established by extremist faculty members.
The establishment of a grade appeals committee consisting of faculty members in the department or in closely related fields not only gives the appearance of fairness but insures it. Fair and consistent application of an appeal policy then becomes a norm and precludes the dishonest practices that have existed in H&SS/L&CC for decades.
Degeneracy in Rensselaer School of Humanities and Social Sciences
|
LILITH |
||
|
Desert Demon |
 |
Camillus Lee Odell, with Teresa Marie Harrison, formerly a professor in H&SS/LL&C now a department chair in College of Arts and Sciences, State University of New York (Albany), and other faculty members, compounded a cover-up of criminal activity. They conspired to conduct a vicious vilification and blackmail campaign in retaliation for reporting arbitrary and capricious grading. They blackballed and stonewalled by filing myriad false reports.
Administrators accepted false and misleading departmental statements made to them at face value concurrent with refusing to accept formal complaints from victims. Criminal activity by self-serving professors bent on career advancement at any cost became one of the most serious criminal offenses within H&SS/LL&C.
An unholy alliance existed between Thomas Phelan, Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, a cunning, corrupt Irish Catholic priest and Gary Judd, Dean of the Graduate School, an equally dishonest anti-Semitic Semite. That alliance allowed the school to become completely lawless and anarchical. Typically, they both refused to respond to requests for interviews or to grant due process required by university regulations; instead, they sanctioned unlawful arrest and other criminal activity. [What Goes Around . . . ]
Similar behavior existed within H&SS which will probably never see the light of day due to willful blindness by tenured faculty members and administrators who consider only themselves. They know that they have unlimited financial resources to buy silence and threaten “omerta”, the traditional academic bullet behind the ear, to anyone that complains about their lawlessness.
Mental Stability and Competence
Another serious dimension concerns the mental stability of the people involved. They have consistently shown over two decades a propensity for dysfunctional behavior. Details relating to that statement will become abundantly clear from individual case study reports about the cabal members.
Recalcitrant instructors voluntarily joined colleagues in behavior that can only define as dysfunctional personality disorder. They became unable or unwilling to maintain personal integrity and used psychological transference to project their own dysfunction onto doctoral students. They then indulged in unlawful activity of no mean proportions for more than two decades to advance their own careers.
This three-factor study gives some idea of the problem at RPI. The authors eliminated criteria relating to criminal incarceration and juvenile delinquency by statistically analyzing three factors of psychopathy better applicable outside forensic populations. This clearly provides data suitable for analyzing the dysfunctional behavior within closed societies like LL&C/H&SS.
|
Three-Factor Model of Psychopathy |
|||
|
Arrogant/Deceitful |
Deficient Affective Experience |
Impulsive/Irresponsible |
|
|
Glibness/Superficial Charm |
Lack of Remorse or Guilt |
Need for Stimulation/Boredom |
|
|
Egocentricity/Grandiose Self-Worth |
Callous/Lack of Empathy |
Parasitic Lifestyle |
|
|
Pathological Lying |
Shallow Affect |
Lack of Realistic Long-Term Goals |
|
|
Cunning/Manipulative |
No Responsibility for Own Actions |
Impulsiveness/Irresponsibility |
|
|
Cooke and Michie eliminated criteria related to criminal incarceration and juvenile delinquency and statistically analyzed |
|||
Conclusion
State officials and university administrators know that if a university receives federal funding and wishes to punish an individual by word or deed then the Constitution requires that punishment must result from due process of law. The Constitution presupposes that university officials have a knowledge of the law and apply it equally.
Only those universities that function within the law preserve the individual freedoms granted by the Constitution despite the self-government privileges that university and state officials possess. Both Rensselaer (a private university) and University of Washington (a public institution) denied both faculty members and students the basic protection that courts provide as a constitutional right even to jaywalkers.
In the author’s experience, neither Rensselaer nor University of Washington made formal charges or presented evidence before convening kangaroo courts in absentia. They both took unlawful, arbitrary action with Council House and government agencies following suit. Notes extracted from hundreds of documents provide a clear-cut paper trail.
Under university regulations, expulsion of a doctoral candidate requires written notice and preliminary hearings with an opportunity to file a defense and to present witnesses. RPI denied basic rights in law by disallowing a hearing, oral testimony, and written affidavits by defense witnesses. [Preliminary Injunction]
University of Washington used the same modus operandi in consort with Rensselaer. Both universities and Council House conspired to use traditional and unlawful academic railroading techniques to deny due process of law and constitutional and human rights. [Conspiracy 2001] [Conspiracy 2002]
Frequently, accused individuals, whose only transgression probably relates to exercise of freedom of expression, do not have access to oral recordings or written transcripts of testimony that would enable them to appeal findings held in absentia. Yet administrators willingly disclose the content of kangaroo court documents ex parte for blackmail purposes.
Officials at both UW and RPI consistently used opinionated, self-serving dicta instead of formal resolution or determination of issues using promulgated procedures. This has resulted in blatant denial of civil rights and due process. Those denials have destroyed careers and precluded individuals from earning a livelihood. Legislators and judges have since recognized that unlawful and vague definitions and secret investigation without accountability or due process, lead to extreme politicization and totalitarian control.
Attorneys General in New York and Washington State, with full knowledge of unlawful acts, have not charged the perpetrators with any crimes or even investigated them. Republication of a curriculum vitae and restoration of a body of academic work destroyed by administrators during their cover up represents a first step in making them accountable. [Curriculum Vitae]
The issues will not come to rest until both universities comply with law. The presidents of both institutions must arrange for independent investigation then discipline or indict the people responsible. Faculty and administration members clearly and deliberately participated in unlawful activities. They have consistently denied civil rights and livelihood.
University officials, faculty members, and attorneys general, have broken laws, framed evidence to support sham disciplinary proceedings, and covered up kangaroo court findings. Only an independent investigator can fairly examine the voluminous documents which support these contentions.
In Washington state, the Attorney General must arrange for the Superior Court to call a grand jury or petition the Supreme Court for an order appointing a special inquiry judge as recommended by former Washington Governor Gary Locke. This could include the organized crime advisory board naming a special prosecutor to investigate both Rensselaer and University of Washington.
Paul Trummel PhD (RPI ABD), PhD (UW ABD), MS (RPI), MSc (UK), BSc (UK)
UK equivalencies in graphic communication recognized by Boston University, Northeastern University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Fitchburg State College, San Jose State University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and University of Washington with comparability twice certified by International Education Research Foundation (IERF), a credential evaluation service accredited by US Department of Education
Associate Professor, Communication and Rhetoric (Retired)
Special Doctor of Philosophy Program (SPhD), University of Washington
Fellow, International Society of Typographic Designers (FISTD)
Fellow, Institute of Paper Printing and Publishing (FIOP)
Member, Society of Authors, London
International Federation of Journalists, Brussels (International Press Card)
National Union of Journalists, London (UK Press Card)
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
© Copyright 2007 by Paul Trummel |
|||||||||||||||||||
