Doc's Talk: Subject: SFSU Professor's misuse of University and taxpayer funds

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Subject: SFSU Professor's misuse of University and taxpayer funds

To: Timothy White, Chancellor California State University

Leslie Wong, President San Francisco State University

Larry Mandel, CSU Vice Chancellor and Chief Audit Officer

Carrie Hemphill Reith, CSU Resource Attorney for Conflict of Interest & Governance

Dear Chancellor White, President Wong, Mr. Mandel, and Ms. Rieth:

We would like to bring to your attention a matter that we believe deserves your immediate attention.

Documents that we recently received in response to a California Public Records Act request submitted to SFSU on April 10, requesting any and all records regarding the University's funding of a "Labor Delegation to Palestine 2014" led by SFSU Professor Rabab Abdulhadi, suggest an egregious misuse of University and taxpayer funds.

According to these documents, Prof. Rabab Abdulhadi received more than $7,000 from the University, including an advance of $2,000, to cover the cost of her trip. However, we believe that in order to procure the administrative approval necessary for securing such University funding, the nature and purpose of Abdulhadi's trip were misrepresented on at least 4 official University documents that were reviewed and approved by the SFSU Risk Management Office and Abdulhadi's Dean, Kenneth Monteiro. And since Prof. Abdulhadi was requesting approval for travel to "high risk" countries, her official documents were reviewed and approved by both the President's and Chancellor's offices (Request for Authorization to Travel/Travel Advance, Request for Travel Approval to High-Risk Country, Request for Foreign Travel Insurance Program (FTIP) coverage, and Request for Approval - International Travel).

Each of these 4 documents emphasizes that the purpose of Abdulhadi's trip was related to University business: to present a paper at the 4th conference of the Center for American Studies and Research to be held at the American University in Beirut, Lebanon, as well as to conduct "research" and to meet with "potential collaborators towards [establishing a] memorandum of understanding with San Francisco State University" in Jordan and the West Bank.

However, a few weeks before her trip, though after she had already received confirmation of her approval for international travel as well as confirmation of her foreign travel insurance coverage, and presumably after she had received a $2,000 advance from the University towards her trip, Abdulhadi sent a short email to the SFSU Risk Management Office informing them that she would be neither presenting a paper nor attending the conference in Lebanon. Oddly, Abdulhadi gave the following off-hand explanation for the significant change in her itinerary and focus: "Unfortunately my name was dropped from the Beirut conference."

Moreover, although on official University documents Prof. Abdulhadi had represented the purpose of her trip as being related to University business, there is considerable evidence showing that the purpose of Abdulhadi's University-funded trip was to engage in her own personal political pursuits and further her own personal political agenda. In an event on March 6, 2014 that was advertised on the SFSU Ethnic Studies website, Prof. Abdulhadi and two other members of the "Academic and Labor Delegation to Palestine 2014" -- SFSU Ethnic Studies Professor Joanne Barker and Abdulhadi's husband Jaime Veve -- discussed their trip to "the West Bank and the 1948 areas of Palestine [sic, i.e. Israel]". In her presentation at the March 6 event, Abdulhadi called the trip to Jordan, the West Bank, and Israel, which she had led, a "political solidarity tour," and she went on to say: "This was not 'solidarity light,' this was not 'pre-Solidarity 101'." Prof. Barker, in her blog documenting the trip, corroborated Abdulhadi's statement, writing that the delegation "established working relationships and furthered their solidarities with Palestinian scholars, artists, and activists engaged in BDS and other efforts against the occupation." The event announcement also confirmed that the purpose of Abdulhadi's University-funded trip was not to engage in University-related business but rather to pursue her own personal political goals: to promote "resolute actions in support of the academic and cultural boycott of Israel."

Prof. Abdulhadi also neglected to inform the University on the official documents required for the approval, insurance and funding of her trip, that she and the delegation she was leading intended to meet with individuals affiliated with organizations on the U.S. State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations:

According to Prof. Barker's blog, the group's first meeting was in Jordan with Leila Khaled, a convicted hijacker and the most famous member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a terrorist organization responsible for 159 terrorist acts such as bombings, armed assault and assassinations, resulting in numerous injuries and deaths including those of more than 20 US citizens. As a result of her terrorist activities, Khaled has been refused entry to Israel, Britain, and Canada. Khaled still advocates armed struggle as "the only and the shortest way towards liberation [of Palestine]".

The delegation led by Abdulhadi also met with Sheikh Raed Salah, leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, who was convicted of funding Hamas, a terrorist organization whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews, and he served a two-year prison sentence 2003 - 2005. In 2008, Salah was charged by an Israeli court with incitement to violence and racism, over a speech he gave in which he accused Jews of using children's blood to bake bread. In 2010, Salah was arrested for his participation on the Mavi Marmara, a boat that was part of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla funded by the International Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), a known radical Islamic and anti-Western Turkish organization which, in addition to humanitarian efforts, provides support and funding to global jihad networks. And 6 weeks after meeting with Abdulhadi's delegation, Salah was sentenced to another term in Israeli prison for incitement to violence after he called for a third intifada.

Evidence that these meetings were planned before Prof. Abdulhadi submitted official University documents seeking approval of her trip comes from a March 2013 social media posting of Mohammad G. Hammad, then an SFSU student and member of the General Union of Palestine Students (GUPS). In an entry on his Tumblr account, Hammad described how excited he was that his professor/advisor (whom he had identified in previous posts as Prof. Rabab Abdulhadi) had offered to have him "join her and a delegation that she is taking to Palestine on a 10-Day trip...during which we will be visiting with prominent figures associated with the Palestinian Resistance movement, as well as ex-Palestinian Detainees...But most of all / The thing that has me fangirling and going crazy / is / That as long as I can take care of some border/transportation issues / I WILL GET TO MEET LEILA KHALID". Not only does Hammad's posting demonstrate that meetings with Khaled and other "figures associated with the Palestinian Resistance movement" were planned by Abdulhadi months before she submitted to the University official documents in which she omitted all mention of these meetings, it also highlights the deeply troubling behavior of Prof. Abdulhadi, who involved a vulnerable student in her plans to meet with members of a known terrorist organizations. It is ironic that Hammad, who in May 2013 became President of GUPS, was no longer a student at SFSU by January 2014 after dozens of his social media postings, in which he expressed murderous violence towards Jews and glorified the terrorist organization PFLP, were revealed.

To summarize:

SFSU Professor of Ethnic Studies Rabab Abdulhadi went on a "political solidarity tour" to Jordan, "1948 areas of Palestine" [i.e. Israel] and the West Bank, a trip whose primary purpose was to build relationships between Palestinian and North American anti-Israel political activists in order to promote antisemitic academic, cultural and economic boycotts of Israel. Abdulhadi arranged for the delegation she led, which included SFSU Ethnic Studies Professor Joanne Barker and Abdulhadi's husband Jaime Veve, to meet with at least one known terrorist, Leila Khaled, as well as with a Muslim cleric who had been imprisoned by Israel because of his ties to Hamas and who was again incarcerated by Israel a few weeks after meeting with Abudlhadi's delegation, on charges of incitement to violence.

On at least 4 official University documents signed by several SFSU and CSU administrators, including SFSU President Wong and CSU Chancellor White or someone from his office, Abdulhadi concealed the fact that the true purpose of her trip was political activism to promote efforts to harm the Jewish state, as well as the fact that she had planned to meet with individuals affiliated with organizations on the U.S. State Department's list of Designated Terrorist Organizations. Presumably by concealing these crucial facts, Abdulhadi was able to receive from the SFSU Office of Human Resources, Safety & Risk Management approval to travel to "high risk" countries and insurance coverage paid for by the University (and California taxpayers), and she was able to receive from the University (and California taxpayers) more than $7,000 dollars for her transportation, lodging and food during the 21 days of her "political solidarity tour."

We believe that there has been an egregious abuse of university and taxpayer funds as well as potential violations of California state law prohibiting the use of state resources for personal or political purposes.

We urge you to investigate this matter immediately, and to make public the results of your investigation.

We and many California taxpayers look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

AMCHA Initiative

Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

Institute for Black Solidarity with Israel

Proclaiming Justice to the Nations

Scholars for Peace in the Middle East

Simon Wiesenthal Center Campus Outreach

StandWithUs

Zionist Organization of America

Cc: CSU Trustees

CSU General Counsel Framroze Virgee

CSU Deputy General Counsel G. Andrew Jones

Kenneth Monteiro, Dean of SFSU College of Ethnic Studies

Sue Rosser, SFSU Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

Michael Martin, SFSU Associate Vice President, Enterprise Risk Management

Dao VanQuate, SFSU Associate Risk Management

Patricia Bartscher, SFSU Counsel

Attorney General Kamala Harris

Deputy Attorney General Stepan Haytayun

California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson

California State Senator Mark Leno (San Francisco)

California State Senator Leland Y. Yee (San Francisco)

California Assembly Member Philip Y. Ting (San Francisco)

California Senator Carol Liu, Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Education

California Assembly Member Das Williams, Chair of the Assembly Committee on Higher Education

California Assembly Member Shirley Weber, Chair of the Select Committee on Campus Climate

California State Senator Marty Block, Chair of Legislative Jewish Caucus

California Jewish Community Leaders

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk