VIII. AFTERMATH: THE DEANS' SMEAR OF NEHLS
While Nehls's appeal was pending, college officials did not speak publicly about the matter, purportedly on the advice of counsel, although what legal interest was being protected by this silence is not at all clear. Equally unclear is why such interests should outweigh consideration of academic freedom, which the faculty had raised at its October 29, 1991 meeting. Heckenlively, the "vice-president for academic affairs" and "academic dean," did not attend the faculty meeting of October 29, 1991, which had protested the harshness of Nehls's treatment, again on the advice of counsel. On November 4, 1991, Heckenlively issued a memorandum to the faculty, announcing that Roche had heard Nehls's appeal. The memorandum also advised the faculty of "some points worth noting" as follows:
(i) Mr. Nehls undertook his enterprise after being told by the College through the Federation president, that it should not be pursued. He did so without the knowledge of the other Federation officers, much less the College. This differs considerably from a student that has been cited as a parallel case, who tried a little free enterprise without obtaining the College's permission but ceased her activities when asked to do so.
(ii) Mr. Nehls's activities resulted in individual approaching local businesses as representatives of the College, with the funds obtained actually going elsewhere, when the businesses thought they were contributing to a College project. These businesses have now stated that they would not have participated if they had known that the funds would never reach the College; some of them are asking for refunds. The situation cannot be resolved simply by releasing the folders, because the businesses themselves regard the folders as fraudulent. At the least, these activities have clouded the credibility of our fund-raising efforts during an important campaign. [Incidentally, I've searched my own knowledge of the College for a parallel that might be useful as a guide for action. One incident that might be informative: Many years ago an athletic coach approached a major, regular donor for about $1,500 in equipment without consulting Development first. That year the College received the equipment money but nothing else, costing the College tens of thousands of dollars. I don't know for sure he was fired, but the following year that coach was working in the public schools.][] (Emphasis supplied).
To this memorandum, Heckenlively attached a press release issued the same day by Barker. In pertinent part, this press release stated that:
[f]reedom of speech, as alleged, is in no way an issue in this matter. Rather, the issue is the act of Mark Nehls, student, entering into an unauthorized contract, following which funds were solicited under false representation of Hillsdale College. This was done without College or Student Federation approval.
Eight local businesses were fraudulently solicited for a substantial sum of funds; these businesses were led to believe that their revenue was going to a Hillsdale College authorized project. Mr. Nehls had been informed earlier that approval of the project was denied by the Student Federation and the administration of Hillsdale College, yet he defiantly proceeded.
Mr. Nehls' fraudulent actions have been embarrassing to Hillsdale College and to the local community. Worse, the College is presently engaged in a FreedomQuest campaign to raise $151 million to ensure the independence of the College from government money and government control. Mr. Nehls' actions are harmful to the success of this campaign. The College cannot and should not tolerate such harmful, embarrassing, unauthorized, fraudulent activities and had no choice but to expel Mr. Nehls. (Emphasis supplied).
Circulating this memorandum and press release was shameless, even for so devoted a Rochean loyalist as Heckenlively. For reasons given above, his assertion that "Nehls under took his enterprise after being told by the College through the Federation president, that it should not be pursued" is extremely doubtful. Even if it were true, it hardly makes Nehls' case more serious than the affair of the T-shirts. To make it appear more serious, Heckenlively appeals to the financial insecurities of the Hillsdale faculty by stating that "these activities have clouded the credibility of our fund-rasing efforts during an important campaign." He offers no proof of these assertions, and for reasons given below, they are extremely doubtful. Furthermore, Heckenlively is either woefully misinformed or lying when he states that "the situation cannot be resolved simply by releasing the folders, because the businesses themselves regard the folders as fraudulent." The Harwell investigation shows that the businesses did not regard "the folders as fraudulent." Indeed, how could they? The term has no meaning. How can folders be "fraudulent?"
Shameless as the November 4, 1991 memorandum was, Heckenlively was still not finished. On November 5, 1991, he sent an e-mail message to the faculty members who had petitioned for a meeting about Nehls. The publication of this memorandum should dispel any lingering doubts that the forced resignation of Morrow-Pschigoda and the expulsion of Nehls were part of a Hillsdale purge-and-smear campaign that aimed at silencing criticism in and by the student press . In pertinent part, this message reads as follows:
There is an old (supposedly) oriental saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." With reference to Mark Nehls, this seems to be the operative notion.
When he was associated with the Collegian, editorials and opinion pieces became increasingly vitriolic. At the same time, financial mismanagement was determined, albeit with nothing really quite "provable"[] as genuine malfeasance, but there were enough irregular and irresponsible activities to remove Michelle [Morrow-Pschigoda] from the Collegian. Mark resigned from the Collegian shortly thereafter. It has not been lost on me that when they withdrew from the Collegian office, a computer, as well as all office supplies, disappeared at the same time. Again, this didn't quite reach[] an actionable or "provable" level. (This computer was returned when Michelle was threatened with a charge of theft.)
As editor-in-chief of The Spectator Mark became increasingly vitriolic at a time when a scheme he set in motion for extracting funds from local merchants was about to hit the fan. He abused his position as Student Federation treasurer by signing off on the agreement when he had been specifically told it was out of bounds. At the least, other Federation, much less College, officers had no knowledge that he was doing it, when he supposedly was acting as a Federation and College representative to the company involved.
What I see is an "artful dodger" who is using an editorial position to create an atmosphere of "martyrdom" to mask questionable activities in other quarters. That is, by adopting an inflammatory editorial style with The Spectator, he seems to have hoped that activities in other areas might be overlooked or seems to have hoped that activities in other areas might be overlooked or punitive actions inhibited, and that any firm responses would be blamed on his editorials rather than his actual activities. This kid is clever.
It is worth noting that a couple of issues of The Spectator have been published since his dismissal, with no particular responses from anyone in administrative authority at the College.[] Mark potentially might continue to publish it, even after expulsion. If the goal was to stop publication of the Spectator, some other course of action would have been taken, i.e., the Spectator is not really the issue, no matter what appearance Mark is attempting to create. (Emphasis supplied).
The head of any faculty who would spew so much venom at a nineteen-year-old student with no real opportunity to defend himself should hang his head in shame forever. A character in a Dickens novel, the "Artful Dodger" was a pickpocket and thief. Heckenlively went even further than Barker and Roche had gone with the innuendo that "the artful dodger" sought to profit personally from the folders project. Heckenlively has a doctoral degree in biology and was dean of the Hillsdale faculty. Such a man is not supposed to be stupid. Nonetheless, he does not notice the contradiction between the statement that Nehls "had been specifically told [the folders project] was out of bounds" and the statement that "Federation, much less College, officers had no knowledge that he was [signing a contract with TCB]." The same contradiction appears in the Roche expulsion letter. As we have previously pointed out, if college officials had not known of the folders project, they could not have forbidden it. Ordinary skepticism would have led Heckenlively to observe this contradiction and question the case against Nehls. He was blinded not so much by lack of intelligence but by his "loyalty" to Roche. He was one of the premier Rochean loyalists on campus. The loyal never question Father Roche and defend him against all criticism.
Heckenlively's memoranda and Barker's press release are almost psychoanalytic in what they inadvertently reveal about the mentality of their authors. Barker's press release asserts that "Mr. Nehls had been informed earlier that approval of the project was denied by the Student Federation and the administration of Hillsdale College, yet he defiantly proceeded." The use of the word "defiantly" says volumes about the reasons for the expulsion. By airing some of the family's dirty linen, Nehls had defied Father Roche, the man with a mission to save the world, and Ma Barker, an ex-high school English teacher with strong authoritarian streak. He had to go.
Heckenlively show us the defense mechanism of "projection" in action. Projection is the attribution of one's own unworthy motives to others. The reality of the Nehls case was that the college confabulated charges of fraud to provide cover for motives it did not wish to admit in public, the expulsion of a student journalist who had defied the Hillsdale administration. In Heckenlively's mind, the truth is reversed, and the college's motive are projected onto Nehls, and his defiance of the administration becomes cover for fraud. Loyalty to Roche takes its toll on the intellect and the character.