Hawk’s Character, and the Characters who would Characterizing it

10David L. Hawk, davidlhawk@gmail.com              or hawkeye_333@yahoo.com, or phone: (973)-517-6130

CHARACTER?

Who is this David Hawk, and how best to characterize him?  He was born and raised on a farm near Fairfield, Iowa.  He lived in a house with no running water until he was 12. The luxury of an indoor toilet and bath tub had a remarkable impact on him, to which he remains grateful.  When he was 14 he became president of his local 4-H chapter, which he closed that day due to members being cruel to animals.  He worked extensively in the farm fields from age seven until 18, and had responsibility for milking 27 Jersey cows until the day in 1963 when he left, against his fathers wishes, to attend Iowa State University.  During high school he was only allowed to take farm related courses and banned by Ms. Mary Jane Petitt from taking college preparatory math and English courses.  She rightfully argued he came from a farm and would probably always remain on a farm. As president of the local Future Farmers of America Chapter in high school he won the state Audubon Award for closing the practice of FFA members bringing paper bags of animal and bird heads to school on Monday mornings, in order to receive points for their getting rid of varmints and pests.

Hawk worked full time, mostly on a UPS night shift, to pay for his college.  He began in electrical engineering as he was told it was the most challenging subject.  He then transferred into Architecture a year later after overhearing a class room lecture by Professor Vernon Stone on the merits of ever greater use of  “brutalizing concrete” to make humans more obedient to leadership.  Hawk saw this idea and man as too tragic to ignore.

Hawk enrolled in AFROTC with a new found friend from Nigeria who know much about being treated badly. Hawk and his friend were removed from the AFROTC in an Air Force ceremony to illustrate what happens to those who do not respect the hierarchy, if its upper level bullies the lower level. Those bullies were not at the ceremony called against Hawk, in that they mysteriously ended up with extreme diarrhea.  The ceremony was to show what happens to those who cannot obey, but mostly showed what can happen to those who need to be bullies in life.

Near the end of Hawk’s third year at ISU he was contacted by his local draft board to criticize him for transferring from a four year college program to one that took five years.  He was informed that during the forth year he would have his name put into the group that would have their names drawn at random, and not be given the fifth year to avoid the army.  To be funny Hawk suggested that he be drafted immediately,  knowing under the law they could not so such. They could and did such, and drafted him immediately suspending the practice of drawing names.  He was to report to the army after finals were completed.  He entered the service in Spring, 2006.

He completed helicopter school in fall of 2006 and was sent to Vietnam. Prior to being assigned to the 282nd Assault Helicopter Company, North of Da Nang, he did a month of patrol duty, with his specialty being tunnels.  The low point of his tour was on 003 hours, January 31, 1968 in the regional capital of Hua during the beginning of the TET Offensive by the NVA.  At one point Hawk was charged with disobeying a direct order of an officer.  After due process and a hearing he was promoted two ranks to Spec-5 for having resisted bad leadership. He was promoted four times in twelve months under combat conditions.  In March, 1968 he was discharged and sent back to Iowa, even though he did not want to leave Vietnam. It had become he true home, with the spirit of his true friends being there.

Hawk eventually completed his university degree than developed a career helping students at many universities in many countries.  He was fired by NJIT in September, 2010 for being guilty of 25 charges related to non ethical behavior.  He was not surprised in that his resume list all jobs he had been fired from, always to be offered a better job by those thinking badly of the ethics or leadership of the prior place. Hawk was found guilty of the charges in a secret meeting of the New Jersey State Ethics Commission, where he was not invited due to the extreme seriousness of the charges brought by NJIT against him. In an open hearing conducted during eighteen months all the evidence behind the twenty-five charges was found wrong, or simply derived from lies but none the less he was found guilty of one charge, one thrown away early in the hearing, but brought back at the end once all 25 were found wanting.  All involved knew Hawk was guilty of something, just not sure of what and with what evidence.  The process is not concluded yet.

Most important to Hawk’s career, he has had the pleasure of having about ten thousand students in his classes, where he continues to be touch with about one thousand. He helped and still helps them as he could and can with housing, tuition, advice’s, and employment. Many have visited his homes and traveled with him.  He seldom locked his New Jersey homes where students and visiting faculty were warmly invited to treat as their home.  Most end of term presentations by his classes were held in his homes.

IMG_0129 149_4995

Hawk now lives part time on his small horse farm in Mt. Olive, NJ in a stone villa from 1836. He lives much of the time on his larger Iowa farm, in a corporate conference facility where many of those he advises hold meetings. He does extensive work for several companies always having them pay charities instead of him for services rendered and facility use.  His needs are and always were small.  He drives a 2005 Nissan van and a 2008 Altima both with about two hundred miles.  He has no need to dress in suits as he spends part of each day with horses and cows.  He works to help support woman and children with no homes and food in various places, including the US.  He will help anyone who has been one of his student with any request. Many of the companies he advises are expected to hire his former students.

Admittedly Hawk is a character, with many weaknesses.  His character is very open for inspection.  He has used his meeting facility to elect Obama, to support Sanders, and to deny Christie access to Iowa farmers in his corner of Iowa.  While he and Trump attended the same business school, he sees Trump as a representative of the dark side of the human condition.  Hawk understands the frustration of those supporting Trump but feels the initiate Hawk has started of a ballot allowing a mark for none-of-the -above as a more helpful path out from the present of badly trained lawyers managing bad governance.

Hawk hates no one, only what they find they must do for reasons that they are afraid to expose.  He holds no resentment again the lawyers and judges of New Jersey who willfully took millions from public monies, with the help of Governor Christie who was on the Board of NJIT, all to deal with this phenomenon called Hawk.  They did not exactly steal from the public coffers as clearly other lawyers had passed laws allowing them to serve their own private interests in the name of serving the public interest.  It was not up to them to question being unethical in the name of guarding the ethical stature of New Jersey. As they said, they did not write the laws allowing a two week hearing to take eighteen months where they and a retired judge received $500/hour compensation.  But, it was up to them to systematically ignore or refuse to examine all evidence that worked against their need to serve the client giving them unlimited access to public monies.

Greater evidence on how others treat the subject of character is seen in njitbs.wordpress.com and njitbs.com.  Abstractions outlined herein are given more substance therein.  In addition, there is a complete data set of the context, charges, depositions, testimony, exhibits, and findings in Hawk’s My Cloud Public Site. The access points are given later.

Issues of character are central to what we think of as well as what others think of us.  Questions of character are used explicitly or implicitly throughout our lives.

The importance of character can be seen in “stories.” The stories illustrate what others think or need to think for financial purposes of my character. How they come to defend their needed thoughts then says a great deal about their character, as well as the character of the system they have aligned their life with. The deeper one goes the more interesting is the dilemma presented by those who conduct business and trade in character.  This supports the thesis made by others of the US judicial system being a business with transactions made in character, the assassination of some and avoidance of others.

NJIT vs Hawk, or, more accurately  President Altenkirch, The Board of Trustees, four high level administrators, five faculty vs Hawk and NJIT Students

Character is herein discussed via a case the officially began in December, 2007,  continues into March, 2016,  and only deals with can NJIT fire Hawk, not yet examining the evidence for why he can be fired for what he has said, nor what it was he said.  The case presented by NJIT against Hawk has been in an out of one Federal and four State Courts.  Hawk asked for explanation of why he could be banned from campus and have his property seized  proposing at the New Jersey Institute of Technology. This is where four long term professors in the School of Management at NJIT discussed the downside of David Hawk, the Dean of the School, with the then President Altenkirch. One of the four proclaimed she was the Presidents “very close friend” and had gotten him to fire Hawk. Hawk had criticized the four for their performance in teaching, based on student evaluations, and removed them from teaching in the increasingly popular Executive MBA Program that Hawk was rebuilding.  Each received an additional ten to twenty thousand dollars a year extra compensation for teaching in that program. Hawk has also criticized their performance in showing up for classes. The President then asked for Hawk’s resignation. In testimony in a legal hearing in January, 2012 the then Provost pointed out that Hawk was banned from campus due to rumors that he planned to take over campus.

they use we gain insights into their character as well.  Some characterizations appear as deeply felt and meant while others seem to causally used to attain other ends, mostly associated with being paid to cast a dark light on my character regardless of what is seen.  This last group primarily consist of those attempting to practice negotiation with the idea of laws they didn’t write and perhaps never understood, and seemingly do not need to understand relative to  saying what best achieves Faustian ends.

A deeply felt characterization arise in a final report on my character as Dean of a Business School where I was removed by the president of that university January, 2008 from complaints by a female friend of the president about my treatment of she as a business school faculty member. She and the president have since left that university.  In early March, 2008, after I had been asked to resign as dean by the president in late January, 2008, this woman brought eight legal charges against my character.  Prior to stepping down, being fired, I was told by the provost that the call for my stepping down came from a meeting between this woman and three other professors that I had removed from teaching in a special program where they received extra compensation above their wages.  The woman, whose name doesn’t matter here, formalize eight charges against me relative to her inner most feelings on my character. This was a teacher removed from teaching executive students due to their comments that “she is not bad unless she forgets to take her meds, then she is crazy.”  Her charges against me were ostensibly softened by a legal counsel she hired, who was later paid for on the record by the university.

An example charge was “She was marginalized in a meeting with executives of (a) Foundation in the Summer 2007. She was seeking to have her research funded by the Foundation. During the meeting it appeared that a decision had already been made to fine (a person), a younger female associate professor.” The facts were that it was a luncheon with the Foundation President and the woman they had tentatively agreed to give the $2 million chair in their name and eight members of the university community also attended. The woman charging my character also showed up and presented her resume to the Foundation President. On the way from the lunch to a private room where he and his associate were to interview the candidate he was seen to walk by a trash can and dropped the other woman’s resume into it. The charging woman was upset by this.

Between March 3 and September 11, 2008 a university wide investigation was carried out by the VP of human resources of the university by members of his staff.  On the final page of a nine page report the VP states? “While the totality of the incidents described, may have been unpleasant, it cannot be concluded that such behavior was “severe and pervasive” based on gender or age. Rather, such behavior is reflective of Hawk’s personality, his personal management style, and his assessment of whether he believed you were competent.”  In his presentation of the report to me the VP went on to point out that to not tolerate “incompetence” might, as he stated in his written report, “….well call for an assessment of (Hawk’s) fitness for an administrative appointment.”  The investigation concluded that none of the charges could be substantiated but further review and attention be give to me.

An example of the other approach to characterizing character can be seen in the operations of New Jersey’s Chair of the State Ethics Commission. Since was was a lawyer it is not clear how she could hold such a position dealing with ethics with any competence but that is not just a question for New Jersey.  The university had presented her with three investigative reports  that were later all to be found heavily prejudiced by a group of faculty and administrators up with me me, and were seen in a public hearing to be mostly wrong. Without ever contacting me or notifying me of a Commission secret meeting I was found guilty of the secret university charges. When she was later asked to explain in a hearing how she could do this she expounded on how this was allowed in cases where the charges were especially egregious.  While showing considerable skepticism of such logic the judge went on to allow her to expand on such thinking.  While being paid what was said to be ” a very high fee” she testified in a hearing against me how egregious the charges I was obviously guilty of were.  I and a lawyer noted that she went on to expand on her thinking to say even if she had never met me that these were the most serious of charges, and if I was not punished it would mark the end of western civilization.  I commented that I thought it ended a long time ago.  Later is was shown that almost everything she said about my character had no basis in fact but she was never questioned on how she could hold a secret, potentially unethical and certainly unusual, meeting about my ethics.  None the less she was well paid for days of testimony on characterizing my character. She is now a law school professor that seems to make  sense.

You will see how the sense of character and its strength can float.   This allow students, their families, their employers and the tax-payers to see what they got for what they invested in their public servants.  It may allow some insight into the growing distrust in US society for its public institutions and those who lead them.

The occasional music, heard only if you tap on it, taps into the passions of musicians long concerned with the public issue of how to represent those with little voice and no choice. In  contemporary society we mostly hear from larger voices who simply assume and take the many choices.

Following is Bruce Springsteen’s not so popular song “Jack of all Trades.” It is about the  feelings of the 99% relative to the rules of the 1% that forever strive to structure all social items while spreading hopelessness in the 99% via conspicuous consumption, rudeness, and corruption of the public institutions they purchase.  Trump and his expressions about Mexicans typifies the 1% and their lack of concern for the grounding context known as the public good, or even intelligent speaking. This is how the least educated come to be the most rabid followers of Trump like ideologues.

Bruce seems to understand all of the above.

Many lawyers, especially acting as Congressional Representatives or impartial judges, can be seen at the center of the anti-public corruption are bought and paid for by the 1%.  They use the public assets for the good of those buying them, or their own good, and not the public good they always leave as ambiguously clear. The tri-part system of the US Constitution and its call for conflict,  its founding desire to only include white men,  its use of English case method without English culture, and its acceptance of having stolen the lands of America.

INTRODUCTION

The story-line stands at the intersection of two New Jersey state public institutions. Set up and financed by the general fund and participant revenues, the institutions are intended to serve and protect the New Jersey public interests.  Since the public interest is or can become ever more ambiguous  with time, via diversity of viewpoints and values,  it is relatively easy for private interests to commandeer such for their very private interests, even to oppose the public interests.

With time, lack of transparency and public neglect, institutions can be taken over by focused private interests. Without effective oversight institutions are taken over by private interests for their own purposes. They can even be turned against the public interest.

Institutions need transparency to have effective oversight. 

The essential question herein, within the blog, and on the NJITBS website, is with how well these NJ Institutions serve the public that sponsors them?  The danger is that with time individuals, often leaders, find ways to redirect institutions’ to serve narrower private interests.  This can be seen in expanding university faculty and administration in the service of status quo and shun improvement. This comes to include lawyers that are not “required” to be ethical nor have any sense of a good character as long as they operate within their own rules, while being highly paid to “protect” business as usual and denigrate agents of change.

The problem is seen in where participants are allowed to turn a projected two week-long hearing  into an 18 month spectacle that excluded witnesses and banned evidence later seen to be essential to the truth of what happened.  Perhaps this relates to the legal representatives hired to wort our the case for NJIT were given no timetable but were allowed infinite work at $500/hour.  Experts steeped in conflicts of interests were allows much control over the specifics of the case.

The Character of Kathleen Wiechnik, Professor of Law, Seaton Hall University

Clearly not a bad person but perhaps overtly frustrated by not having been able to attend a particularly prestigious law school nor now teaching at one with any particular note. have gone to and now teaching at a now particularly good school. In between she held interesting titles for responsibilities she was apparently not up to handling as a public servant.  With a better preparation she might well have done a good job, even by non-New Jersey standards as to ethics and its articulation.

An example is where the Chairperson of New Jersey Ethics Commission could hold a secret meeting to find a defendant guilty,  where none of this was known by the defendant who  was never notified nor questioned, except by an ethics officer that refused in the interview to share her evidence during and after the interview.

This was not surprising as she had no basic knowledge of the law and the judicial cases surrounding the misinterpreted law she was enforcing. Even less surprising is how her conclusions and charges came via she having no college degree, no special training, nor any demonstrated competence in ethics or investigations.  This helps to explain how the final bill for the Hearing can be in the neighborhood of $5 million.  This money, never entered in a particular account by the Trustees, including New Jersey’s Governor, came directly from  student tuition and tax payer monies,  was invested in a single case of a single individual.

That agent was seen to set up to change the process for hiring by setting up a democratic search committee, instead of simply hiring someone. He was then charged with doing to so to hide an as yet undisclosed, perhaps even unfounded, private self-interest that was not the public interest.  To firm of the vacuous charge he was also charged manufacturing evidence that would mysteriously help him where proof of its fabrication could be seen from there being no erasures or changes on original while only ever having seen a xerox copy. With time the same lawyers can modify the laws used to expand their interpretation while excusing lawyers from the same laws as its hard to operate under such rules.

The two are New Jersey’s 1) Higher Education Systems and 2) Lower Judicial Systems.  In 1994 Christi Todd Whitman set the first free from public oversight while continuing to send the public monies that normally require oversight. One takes money from the public domain and distributes it liberally in the other domain. What is the benefit therein derived?

As is to be expected societal institutions requires funding, maintenance, occasional change, and eventual rehabilitation or even replacement. The bias herein is for how to accomplish occasional improvements so catastrophic replacement is not needed. Those interested in the field can look into institution building, often called social architecture. Therein you will find materials to guide maintenance, remodeling and management, but not so much on abandonment. There is additional material on building missing institutions in society where the most interesting ones are built on the refuse of unused or, harmful and previously abandoned, institutions. In the mentality of the US body politic the US Congress is just now a candidate for abandonment. Perhaps the best way to improve is to raise the issue of how each is funded and ask to see what benefits are derived from what the public invests? Perhaps we start with who do these two institutions serve, is it the public, the public good, or do they work for the interests of a few lawyers and a few educators that have taken control over them.

SOCIAL ARCHITECTURE, A MISSING INSTITUTION

Some sense of oversight of New Jersey Public Universities seems in order to replace what was undone by the Whitman Administration in 1994. Its prime purpose is to provide greater transparency of what is decided and then managed, as well as who decides and manages it.  It would look into the obvious contradictions of there being a basis for corruption in leadership with no sense of to where to lead, except be better at doing the wrong things, then in teachers that are doubly protected from the results of their actions or inaction’s by having both tenure and union protections in NJ.  Probably some weight should be giving to no lawyers being qualified to be on this commission due to have already excused themselves from ethics rules.  This much like the story line

Discussion is emerging in politics of creating a missing institution as oversight of traditional governance. It is concerned with rebuilding a more perfect judicial system. It questions the role of lawyers in  government and in litigation. Its calls for ethics to enter both activities and manage the consequences of badly written, often corruptly directed laws while helping badly prepared lawyers or burnt out lawyers who have trouble meeting schedules and then lack time for ethical considerations. The role of lawyers would therein be changed. The role of lawyers in writing legislation may need to be reduced in favor of those whose language and attitude can better represent the values of the majority of citizens.  Examples of this can be seen in other countries, such as those in Scandinavia where the judicial creed is:  “The first step in getting citizens to obey the law is to write it so they can understand it. Lawyers are demonstrably incompetent at this.” (Hawk, 1977)

This may all be relevant since the US has ten times the number of lawyers per capita compared to our trading partners. There is much evidence that the majority of their activities are harmful to the well being of the economy and sense of justice.  One argument against reducing the need for lawyers  is to point out how effective the current system is in that the US has more of its citizens locked up than any other country in the world, including China.  Those with this attitude proudly conclude that:  “We must be doing something right.”  This is perhaps the Nancy Reagan attitude to crime and punishment: “Just say no, then lock em up and throw away the key.”

We might want to  revisit 18th Century concerns about lawyers packing the Supreme Court. There is an argument that the court cannot be worse if there are only non-lawyers on the Supreme Court.  In fact, having no law school graduates might allow it to adopt a more citizen based attitude towards laws and  legal interpretations.  This might limit the widespread use of incoherent legalese to cover up not knowing what to say or how to say it, or not having had sufficient time to reflect on what ought to be said or thought.

The situation in public universities is similar. Prior objectives of providing a forum for student learning and negotiating with if not finding the truth have become overshadowed.  College sports, faculty unions and second rate leaders pretending to be business CEOs have provided an agenda that continually raises tuition above any rate of inflation and promote faculty that do their utmost to avoid having to teach, or teach as if it was not the reason they were there.  The result are unprepared graduates with stifling tuition borrowings that keeps them from contribution to society improvement.

Both institutions exhibit problems in their character and the characters they attract.  The issue of character inside and outside the current judicial and educational systems provide a foundation for discussions about what is and what ought to be. The challenges of climate change will bring human character to center stage.  Mass migration, wide-spread arguments over land, food and materials will require much more robust and fair judicial and educational systems then we currently have.

Just now the current determinant of success in court proceedings seems to be the image of power measured by a litigant’s access to money, including access to tax paper’s money.  Truth can still emerge but the route to it is often not obvious. It should be more obvious.  Success in the university system is measured by teachers who do their utmost to avoid teaching in order to write tier one papers that no one one reads. Promotion and tenure in universities is granted to those who totally avoid service, make derogatory comments about those who want to teach and their students, and spend their time writing papers where their colleagues at other universities evaluate them.

Symbiotic Negatives of Justice Linked to Education

The blog referenced at the beginning is about the process of a university, NJIT, using the judicial process to bring David Hawk to justice relative to the character of Hawk’s actions as a dean. More specifically, was he ethical, relative to conflicting interests in serving the public of New Jersey?  Many millions of public dollars and many years of many people’s public service came to be invested in the process of answering this question.  During these years Professor Hawk was banned from campus as he was said to have planned a “take over” of the university for his purposes.  Regardless of this silliness he as a seemingly successful teaching (per ratings on “rate-my-professor.com” and his having won most student and alumni sponsored teaching awards in the university) was kept from the classroom. Per his rosters he was about ten thousand students in his courses at NJIT while teaching there.  He was also banned from an  administration tole in the business school, a role that a judge reviewing his management practices commented was a pathway to the 21th Century.

This process began with four professors going to the president to complain about Hawk after he removed them from teaching in an EMBA program where they each received an extra ten thousand dollars compensation. They were removed based on student comments and the role of student comments in re-accreditation.  One of the faculty members when  on to actually charge Hawk with more serious crimes than only having removed her from teaching advanced students. An internal report concluded six months later that of the 8 serious charges he was faced with there was no evidence to support any of the charges. The report did whimsically comment that Hawk needed to face further investigation and that perhaps Hawk ought not to have have been in administration because he could not tolerate incompetence.

Perhaps this university is due for rehabilitation.  Student tuition was raised almost the same amount as the process against Hawk cost. This involved expenditure of millions in direct and indirect costs. The result of this as it emerged in a final hearing that had been scheduled for two weeks but taking eighteen months was 25 charges were reduced to one.  Even it was based on speculation and later shown to not be true, based on the evidence provided.  There was simply no supporting evidence for even this one charge.  None the less the university board of trustees took that charge an added two more seemingly to justify the years and millions invested.  The charge was that he had set up then manipulated a search committee to hire a friend of his.

It was the first time a search committee had been used in the school, according to Hawk, in order to bring more democracy into school management. Hawk admitted that the person hired, one of 36 where the judge also evaluated her as the best candidate, was indeed a friend.  She was recommended by the search committee. He defined friend as someone he  trusted.

Thus, we are left with an interesting questions. Is it more in the public interest to hire those you do not trust? Perhaps more important is how to prove their case the university administration destroyed thousands of pages of material showing the actual search and related process, and the nature of the friendship between Hawk and the person hired.  The interim dean, appointed by the university president, who trashed all the evidence of the hiring also destroyed the hard drive of a central school computer so records maintained for two decades were also lost.  In addition two computers used by Hawk at the time and in offices where only administration had access were damaged in Hawk’s absence.

As a brief introduction to the idea that characters involved in the case used interesting characteristics to characterize David Hawk’s character. A few are offered in this list:

  • One of two prosecutors hired by NJIT to prosecute the case  against Hawk’s ethics was the first faculty member Hawk fired after becoming Dean as that lawyer was not qualified to teach business law per accreditation requirements.
  • The University General Counsel hired an outside law firm to prosecute the case against Hawk as well as the judge that would evaluate Hawk’s degree of guilt for eventual punishment.  All three were on a first name basis and all were paid $500/hour. The funds were taken from student tuition and tax payer money.
  • The judge hired to manage the hearing was a retired chair of the appeals court that was to hear the case later to see if it was done in a legitimate manner.
  • According to testimony the key prosecution witness had been threatened by university lawyers and ended up giving four different versions of what had happened.  The judge found him to be credible in his final report, and the one version given consistently by Hawk to not be credible.
  • Hawk was accused of manufacturing evidence to support his testimony, where the handwritten notes were said by the judge to have been produced long after the search process where Hawk claimed he made the notes.  An affidavit of a witness verifying this to not be so was not allowed into the record.  A later letter from a member of the search committee verifying Hawk’s account was not reviewed by the Appeals Court thus their former Chair’s logic was allowed to stand.