My Treatment in Last Tuesday’s OAC Call

Posted by on Sunday, November 7, 2010 · 95 Comments 

Last Tuesday (2/11/2010), Dr. Onkar Ghate, Debi Ghate, and Dr. Yaron Brook held a phone conference with most of the current OAC students. In preparation for this call, an email was sent out to the OAC students which, among other things, contained a PDF that had the conclusion of the ARI section of my recent post about Dr. McCaskey’s resignation, and none of the rest. In addition to many other topics, part of the phone conference consisted of Dr. Ghate discussing me and the post, based solely on that conclusion.

Only my conclusion was sent to the group, and only the conclusion was discussed. My post was long for a reason: I knew my conclusions were surprising and I wanted to make sure my evidence was presented as fully as possible. The conclusion was clearly not meant to stand alone. What possible reason was there to take my discussion out of context? I was never told that my post was being used, and if things had happened the way Dr. Ghate intended I wouldn’t have even known that there was an OAC call, let alone that I was discussed. Why was it so important that I not know about this?

My post was characterized as a “rant”. Granted, my post was long, but, however much one may disagree with the conclusions, that is a completely unwarranted description. I strove to make the reasons for my conclusions clear and based on the evidence in a calm, straightforward manner, and though my conclusions may be extreme that does not mean they are the emotionalistic, unsupported spewing that “rant” implies.

According to the discussion, my conclusion is an attack on the integrity and independence of current ARI intellectuals, and Dr. Ghate was surprised by that attack. I think it’s clear (especially given the rest of the article) that I was talking about the implications of the implicit policy of Dr. Peikoff’s email staying in place for the future of the Institute, not anything to do with any current intellectuals. My point (which I stand by) was that IF it’s true that a person can lose his job for an intellectually honest disagreement that does not imply disagreement with Objectivism or contradict the policies of the ARI (as appears to be the case here), THEN the climate at the ARI will be incompatible with the needs of an academic, and one implication of that is that any future work from the ARI will have to be looked over a bit more skeptically. Now, I’m not ruling out the possibility that someone could honestly interpret my statement otherwise, but no one at the ARI, including Dr. Ghate, ever contacted me to make sure my views were understood correctly, or to make sure I was aware of the implications. Why, if Dr. Ghate was so surprised, didn’t he say anything to me? [ADDENDUM 7/11/10 2335 EST: After Anon2 in the comments contacted me privately with his concerns, I want to clarify that it is possible to interpret Dr. Ghate as having said that it was possible I was unaware of the implications of my position. However, although that would mean he wasn't as unfair as I thought he was, it would just make it even more confusing that he didn't try to contact me first.]

I was apparently ridiculed for saying that my interpretation was “the only reasonable interpretation of these events”. That statement was meant to be read in the context of the rest of the post, that is “given what I’ve said here, this is the interpretation I’m lead to”. Obviously, if I was wrong about something in the body of the post, my conclusion is no longer supported as I thought it was, but I don’t see how it’s fair to interpret me as saying that any reasonable man looking at the situation would come to my conclusion. If I had thought that were the case, why would I have put so much time into giving my reasons?

It was claimed that I wrote this post without any attempt at communication or asking questions. This is absolutely false. On September 20th, nearly a month before the publication of my post, I sent an email to Dr. Brook raising the very same concerns I raised in the post. I then postponed writing my post to wait for a reply, which I only gave up on after Dr. Brook’s email published in the NoodleFood post about this issue made it clear that the ARI was not interested in (or able to) clarify the situation. There are at least four people who had intended to contact the ARI with questions who decided not to after I told them my email went unanswered.

The timing and reasoning of my departure from the OAC were also discussed on the call (with my friends and former classmates in the audience!), as was Dr. Ghate’s interpretation of my attitude toward him and the OAC as a whole. Now, I don’t particularly mind them knowing all of that, but that information is mine to tell. If Dr. Ghate thought it was important that the students know these private facts, why didn’t he contact me first to make sure I was ok with them being discussed?

Finally, Dr. Ghate made assumptions about why I am no longer recommending the OAC that I can characterize as nothing less than a completely baseless fantasy. It was suggested (apparently in a very condescending tone) that I planned to tell stories that took class discussions out of context to demonstrate the lack of intellectual independence of OAC students. My post was explicitly set up to be supported only by publicly available facts, and I have given no indication that I thought the classes had evidence of intellectual cowardice (in fact, my experiences demonstrate otherwise), that I would take classroom discussion (that I promised, when joining the OAC, not to spread) out of context, or that anything in this entire post was based on my personal experience in the OAC at all. Why didn’t Dr. Ghate take me at my word: that I was no longer recommending the OAC because I didn’t think the ARI has an appropriate environment for an intellectual so long as Dr. Peikoff’s email goes unchallenged? Perhaps he disagrees with that conclusion, but at least that is what I actually said.

As you can probably guess, I’m extremely upset and furious. I’ve been misrepresented, been subjected to falsehoods, and never received even the courtesy of an email letting me know that anyone took issue with my statement (let alone checking to make sure I was interpreted properly). I sent an email to Dr. Ghate, Dr. Brook, Debi Ghate, and (based on mistaken information about her relationship to the call) Dr. Tara Smith asking for an explanation of this treatment of me, and received nothing. This aspect of the situation has been terrible on many levels: that I’ve been attacked in front of my friends and former classmates, that, if Dr. Ghate had had his way, I wouldn’t have had a chance to defend/explain myself or (if I had thought I had done wrong) apologize, that a man I respected and liked treated me and my intellectual work in such an inappropriate (and, frankly, mean) fashion, and that an educator abused his authority and position to attack his former student in order to provide a “lesson” to his current ones. In order to explain my situation and feelings, to defend myself to my classmates who heard the attack, and to allow the general public to know what Dr. Ghate (sanctioned, by silent assent, by Debi Ghate and Dr. Brook) has done and to judge him accordingly, I had to publish this post. I hope this will help lead to a more just resolution of the situation, but at the very least I will have said my piece.

If you want more information about this situation or my views, please feel free to contact me.

ADDENDUM (7/11/10, 2040 EST):

I have received several comments from those concerned with the source of my information. To that, I have two comments:

  1. I am certain that I am not leaving out important context, and that the remarks I claim were made were made. If you want to know the details of how, please contact me privately.
  2. Perhaps it can be claimed that I should never have been given the information I was given. But I was, and once I knew that I was slandered in front of 70+ OAC students I could hardly stay silent, especially not for a privacy policy that is not binding on me. And even if you disagree with me knowing what I know, I think people should focus on the facts of what was said, included whether it was fair or not, and not on the means by which I learned them.

Filed under Morality, Objectivism, Philosophy · Tagged with

About Shea Levy

← Older Comments
  • http://twitter.com/aaronbilger Aaron Bilger

    Given that the comments now have almost a half-dozen posters claiming to be in OAC or to have heard the call, all Anon*, and that you don’t give your name, that ‘fear’ hypothesis seems to be getting a lot of support.

  • Anon

    Yes, because now every time somebody wants to evaluate something someone else said, we have to have that person there with us. Why didn’t Shea have ARI with him when he made his absurd accusations? Oh, that’s right. They didn’t respond to his rude, loaded letter so he decided to go ahead with his comments anyway, regardless of whether he actually had all the facts.

    And does “justification” for a ridiculous conclusion simply mean that there have to be some words before it, regardless of whether they are strung together in any coherent, logical form? Because if so, yes, Shea had a lot of justification to imply that nobody at ARI thinks for themselves and would let an “innocent” man be slandered by an irrational tyrant.

  • http://twitter.com/aaronbilger Aaron Bilger

    No one here is professing to have ‘done good by violating a confidentiality agreement’. And your insistence that others’ identities be revealed is most ironic and laughable given that you conceal your own identity.

    Don’t you think you are doing good in objecting to this blog post? Don’t you want to be ‘appropriately recognized’ for your efforts?

  • DavidB

    When a man who has made a tremendous gift to ARI is kicked off the board by Peikoff, without even a phone call from Peikoff, it is entirely understandable why anyone associated with ARI would live in fear.

  • http://www.shealevy.com Shea Colton Levy

    I want to make it clear that this comment was NOT made by me. The commenter wished to remain anonymous and asked if I was ok with using my email address/website in the comment form.

  • Anon

    Oh okay, then this person’t *hasn’t* done good. Then why protect the weasel? Remember, we are trying to be just. :)

  • MSB

    Well as someone who is not posting anonymously and is easily identifiable by the ARI staff, I have no fear in saying, for the nth time, that I side with John on this issue, even after the conference call (which was, incidentally, excellent).

    I would especially urge those who were not on the call to not read too much into this discussion, which appears to be a growing parade of misrepresentations and unwarranted accusations.

  • Brendan Casey

    So far, the behavior I have seen from the ARI is more akin to a political “circling of the wagons” than anything approaching intellectual discourse.

    They have made no public statement regarding this issue. Instead, they took a group of people whose academic careers are tied to their relationship to ARI, put up poorly-represented versions of their (Shea et. al.) arguments, and shot them down. They did this without notifying the author(s), allowing them to comment, or even engaging them in a discussion giving them the chance to revise or change their opinion (which Shea has openly, and properly, stated he is willing to do if new information comes to light).

    I liken this to a prize fight where the challenger’s hands are cuffed behind his back.

    Without any statement on ANY of this from the ARI, my conculsion has to be that the point of the meeting was to make an implicit threat to the audience: “Toe the line, or this could happen to YOU.” I, like Shea, am willing to change my opinion if the ARI should offer any evidence to the contrary. But again, their behavior so far has been that of political protectionism rather than honest discourse.

    I understand if there are contractual obligations at hand here, but if this were the case, I don’t see any need to drag the (unrepresented) authors of dissenting opinions into a forum of their peers & former peers for the purpose of taking them down. Unnecessary. This action is more in line with making a veiled threat.

    Again, I am willing to acknowledge that I may be wrong. But I will need evidence, an argument, or SOMETHING from the ARI.

    Several commenters here have suggested that the ARI is very busy, and I am sure that is true. But if they want any more of MY money, they will need to offer some sort of justification. We are all waiting.

    Oh, and a helpful suggestion to “Anon”: consider keeping the sarcasm and ad-hominem arguments to a minimum. You are not helping your case.

  • http://twitter.com/aaronbilger Aaron Bilger

    I don’t see any reason to think that whatever person or persons gave information from the conference call are even in this discussion, let alone whether they claimed to have ‘done good’ or not. But you are here and are still hiding. Why so modest? Again, don’t you think you are doing good in objecting to this blog post, and want to be ‘appropriately recognized’ for your efforts?

  • http://twitter.com/Tenure Rory

    I disagree with this assessment of trying to scare people off. As wrong as I think what they did was, I do not think it was quite like that. It was more intended simply to be what it was: to offer those criticisms, and to explain to students that there is a proper way for them to behave outside of class, by way of direct examples. It was not a threat, but a clarification of their policy. A wrong policy, I might add, and a wrong way to do it, but not the kind of… posturing you’re describing.

  • http://blog.shealevy.com/ Anon101

    Rory,
    You may be right as to their intention. They were not trying to scare people off, but such tactics certainly do that. Imagine how Shea feels, a college student, who has his piece ripped apart like that effectively behind his back? Now imagine what the other OAC students feel?

    I think that the people at ARI were deeply hurt by some of the comments and they effectively circled their wagons. Unfortunately, they conflated *how* some comments were made (although Shea’s comments were respectful) with the content. Even if someone’s comments were rude or offensive, they can be true. Frankly, some of your comments fall in that category, as you so forthrightly admitted.

    The bottom line is what is true or not, *not* how it is said. Of course, that matters to a small degree. Politeness is a virtue, but I would rather hear the truth from some foul-mouthed person than falsehoods told by a sycophant.

    The behavior of ARI — its silence and then this odd conference call — is frightening to students, in particular. Students are working to discover answers and they cannot fear that their questions or writings will be dismissed so cavalierly as Shea’s, the Hsiehs’ and Craig Biddle’s pieces were.

  • non OAC anon

    I agree with the gist of Brendan’s analysis. You don’t need to make a threat in order to communicate a point.

  • http://rantfromtherock.blogspot.com/ Kelly Valenzuela

    I think this privacy thing is weird. Granted, I’m not in academia and haven’t been for a long time, so I am a bit ignorant on such subjects, but I guess I can’t think of anything I have to hide. I’m not a liar and I’m not afraid to be judged. Anything I’ve done in my past that’s bad, I’ve dealt with and am prepared to answer questions about. I can understand why instructors would not be allowed to divulge student information without their permission, but I am curious why OAC has the reverse policy?

  • http://rantfromtherock.blogspot.com/ Kelly Valenzuela

    “The people to whom Dr. Brook has delegated these tasks, via the official communications channel available prominently on the ARI website.”

    I emailed ARI via their “official communications channel” and received no response. Not even a canned response saying they had no public comment. I received absolutely nothing.

    There have been and continue to be many signs that ARI is poorly managed. (That’s not a dig at their ideas or the work they’re trying to do, I’m saying the business is poorly managed.) Even if tasks are being effectively delegated (and that’s a big IF), it’s obvious that either no one is processing those tasks or they’re not being provided what they need to do their job.

  • http://rantfromtherock.blogspot.com/ Kelly Valenzuela

    All of which could be resolved if ARI had some decent PR and/or management. :-P

  • Anonymous^10

    Though I disagree with the focus on the atmospherics and supposed intimidation by Onkar and OAC, I myself was rather appalled by Tuesday night. It’s not only what Shea talks about (his source looks mostly accurate — the private comments about him were a short parenthetical to explain Onkar’s personal frustration, not really a big deal) and the fairness of bringing him and Craig into a private forum in the manner they did. The bigger problem was the level of bluster and lack of any serious content in general. The intellectually vapid way they evaluated JM and Peikoff, why JM’s resignation should have been “private” (the analogy and the reasoning for this was really dreadful — much worse than I imagined, though I can’t reproduce it here) are two things that stuck out for me. Overall, not terrible on some issues but worse than I feared on others.

  • Guest

    If Onkar Ghate read a former student’s blog post to his OAC students in the manner described above, Onkar Ghate is guilty of an obnoxious breach of professorial etiquette.

    I find it appalling that the dean of the institute’s academic programs—an institute, mind you, that has elected to remain silent on Leonard Peikoff’s taking John McCasky to the proverbial woodshed—nevertheless feels at liberty to slime a former student in front of his current students. That’s not how one engenders independent thought—its how one slaps independent thought in the face.

    I am embarrassed for Ghate and the Ayn Rand Institute and I will not support either under there is proper atonement for this appalling conduct.

  • MSB

    Hi Anonymous10, If you’d like to email me or send me a message on Facebook we could talk about it. I think they just weren’t addressing certain aspects of the situation.

  • Anonymous

    As someone else who was at the entire call, I can say that Shea’s facts are completely accurate and not out of context at all.

  • OriginalAnon2

    Just so we’re all clear, there have been two people posting as “anon2.” One was me. I posted two messages. The one starting with “You are right that some of what Shea has been told omits contexts and gets some facts wrong.” And the one starting with, “As seems to be happening a lot in this dispute.” I haven’t posted anything else.

    – MikeM

  • Anon2

    Aaron,

    This is bullshit. Here’s one simple (and true in my case) reason we might not want to post under names that give away our identities:

    Graduate admissions committees and hiring committees very often Google applicant names. Having ones name come up in a spat of any kind (let alone one involving Objectivism) might prevent one from being admitted to or hired by an academic program.

    MSB has already contradicted you, and I’ll do the same. I’ve finished the OAC undergrad program. I never felt any fear about asking any question whatsoever. I’ve been emailing my adviser and asking him questions both about the content of the call and what happened to McCaskey. Again, no fear, no intimidation, no threats of expulsion or excommunication, etc.

    – MikeM

  • Anon2

    How do you know Shea’s letter to Yaron was rude or loaded?

    – MikeM

  • Anon

    “Here’s one simple (and true in my case) reason we might not want to post under names that give away our identities:
    Graduate admissions committees and hiring committees very often Google applicant names. Having ones name come up in a spat of any kind (let alone one involving Objectivism) might prevent one from being admitted to or hired by an academic program.”
    [by MikeM, I gather]

    Burnham’s Law #1: Everybody Knows Everything. Google It.

    I was waiting for the infamous “clarification conference call” to leak out. A simple Google Blog search of “Mccaskey OAC” was all it took. That, and an aggrieved blogger.

    The big difference between this exercise and all previous exercises in Objectivist public embarrassment is that the Web is the medium. Everybody that wants one has a platform for disseminating written communication, and it is archived, and thus retrievable – and not “forgettable.” Even us Anonymae, known only by our styles (Hi, Cato! Hi, Publius!).

    Whatever organized Objectivist Establishment there is seems to have ignored this simple fact in the evolution of communication. Keeping the teachings on tape or phone conversation, and controlling access to this information (claiming protection of intellectual property) serves to accomplish only two things: to marginalize what little intellectual progress these people have made, and to perpetuate this underground ethos. But I digress…

    MikeM’s comment is heartfelt and well-put, but seems to point to a structural flaw in the education of a new generation of Objectivist academics. By your own admission, you cannot participate in any public forum for fear of retribution: either from putative future employers, or from those who can accredit you in your program now. Did Onkar Ghate start this way? Did Yaron Brook? Did David Harriman? Did John McCaskey?

    Tear it up, trash it, starve it of funds. It’s not going to become transparent. There’s got to be a better way than depending on the charity of Leonard Peikoff.

  • http://twitter.com/aaronbilger Aaron Bilger

    Congratulations to you and MSB for your identities being easily uncovered. I never claimed all anonymous posters necessarily had the same reasons, and your ‘bullshit’ is uncalled for. You do present another possible valid reason for desiring anonymity, but can only claim that concerning yourself. What say the other 7 or so OAC ‘Anons’ on their reason for anonymity?

  • Anon2

    I don’t get your point. What’s the structural flaw in the education of new academics?

    – MikeM

  • http://twitter.com/aaronbilger Aaron Bilger

    I don’t know that it’s posted on the blog, but the text of Shea’s email was posted on his Facebook page about a week ago and it’s easy enough to judge for yourself if you consider it rude or loaded.

  • George Guest

    I think my tape recording of the conference call confirms Shea’s account. Please contact me privately for an mp3 file of it.

  • Anon

    Is this George Saad?

  • Randian Inquiry

    Hi, George Guest. I can’t see your email address and I would like to hear the mp3. Can you please send a copy or a URL or something to me at randian.inquiry@gmail.com? Thanks!

  • Randian Inquiry

    Hi, George Guest. I can’t see your email address and I would like to hear the mp3. Can you please send a copy or a URL or something to me at randian.inquiry@gmail.com? Thanks!

  • RC

    Could I also receive the mp3? roger-creed92@hotmail.com
    Thanks.

  • http://www.theoasisjournal.com/ George Saad

    No, this is not me, and I resent being dragged into this after receiving an email about the subject. I am not even an OAC student.

    Anybody on the fence on this issue should take the rational approach of seeking the relevant information about the issue from all involved parties. Should one attempt to do this, one will quickly find that one party, the ARI, will not divulge any of the reasoning behind their actions or information that lead to their conclusions. The policy attempts to subvert the mind of relevant actors by obscuring relevant information, thus getting them to support ARI policy by fear, treating the ethically commendable act of questioning itself as an act of disloyalty. So don’t even bother to hunt down any recording that might exist and listen to it when you already know that the organization that produced it holds the reasoning mind of the public in such contempt that they expect it to reach favorable conclusions about questionable moral condemnations while concealing their reasoning about the matter in a condescending manner offensive to any rational person. Think of how silly it is to care to do justice to OAC’s treatment of Shea in a public forum when it has shown nothing but utter disregard for deigning to make information like this accessible in such a forum.

    So no, I am “George Guest”, and I resent being brought into this conversation, either through accident or, perhaps, through some sort of attempt to malign my name, though that is purely speculation, but not groundless in that I know of no other Georges that could plausibly have posted that. Please, leave me alone on the matter. This whole affair is patently ridiculous.

  • Dan Wheaton

    Please forward a copy of the MP3 to DanielLWheaton@gmail.com. The included information with not be shared nor will remarks be attributed to the speakers.

    Thank you.

  • George Guest

    Never heard of you before seeing this post about how you resent…well, I guess that my name is George. Or perhaps you “resent” my mom for naming me George?

  • http://theoasisjournal.com/ George Saad

    Ok, I thought that since I was getting emails telling me that you hadn’t provided your email, a seeming necessity to get into contact with you, and you took the odd step of supplying your first name but not your last, you were just someone trying to attract attention me for some reason.

    No hard feelings. I just wanted to make it emphatically clear that I have nothing to do with this so I don’t get any more emails about it or find myself with a summons to litigation any time soon.

  • Obama

    How would you like us to contact you privately?

  • Anon

    You can read it.

  • Pleonard Leikoff
  • AnotherAnon
  • Guest-57

    Wow! Those links really are inappropriate and should be removed given just how much trust that person violated. Not that it’ll really support Shea’s comments (this and the previous post) which perhaps honest are misguided. As I remember the call it very well explained the McCaskey situation barely mentioned Shea and was pretty fair about the situation given what was written. Sigh.

  • Guest-57

    Disqus changed by username despite me entering something else. Call me Guest57.

  • http://www.shealevy.com Shea Colton Levy

    I have removed the URLs to the recordings.

  • Pingback: Trey Givens » Blog Archive » Peikoff Comes Out Swinging!

  • http://www.shealevy.com Shea Colton Levy

    I have closed the comments on this thread. I still welcome private communication on this issue, though I may or may not be able to respond.

  • Pingback: Trey Givens » Blog Archive » The OAC Mole

← Older Comments