Documentation to "My Case"

-
US COURT OF APPEALS, 2ND CIRCUIT
-----------------------------------------------------
Tibor Gasparik,
Plaintiff-Appellant
...................................................................................................... Argument
v.
...................................................................................................... 07-cv-03398
Stony Brook University,
Defendant-Appellee
-----------------------------------------------------

I am Plaintiff pro se, Tibor Gasparik, and this is a civil action for damages and injunctive relief brought pursuant to the Right to Free Speech and Freedom of Association under the First Amendment.

I was employed between 1985 and 2002 as Research Associate Professor at the Department of Geosciences, Stony Brook University. I performed research at levels that could be rated among the best in the world by any standards of scholarly achievement. The results were published in 70 peer-reviewed articles and summarized in this book (Phase Diagrams for Geoscientists, Springer-Verlag 2003). However, for most of my employment, I was subjected to hostile actions by my superiors, with the clear intention of making my work difficult and life miserable, and thus to force me to leave employment. When these actions failed, I was dismissed in January 2002 under the excuse that “the project has ended.” Yet, despite being the most senior and accomplished scientist among all scientists participating in the project, I was the only one dismissed under this excuse, while four scientists from communist China continued their employment without interruption.

For many years, I searched in vain for an explanation for the startling discrepancy between my superior performance and accomplishments as a scientist and the indifferent to hostile behavior by my colleagues. Several of my colleagues devoted extraordinary amounts of time and effort to a single goal: to force me to leave my employment.

Since 2003, it has become evident that most universities and colleges in the United States discriminate against conservatives in hiring, retention and promotion. This fact is based on surveys, voter registration records, voting records and political donations, which show that conservative scholars all but disappeared from the academic community. Instead, as exposed in this book (David Horowitz: The Professors, Regnery 2006), many professors universities apparently prefer to hire are communists or communist sympathizers, people who hate this country, while often have only minimal scholarly accomplishments. I have never tried to hide my conservative views nor my record of voting for Republican candidates, but cannot name a single faculty member who is not a liberal. I do not even have the option of pretending to be a liberal because it is widely known among my peers in the scientific community that I am a refugee from communism. I believe that my political orientation is the sole reason for the discrimination against me in hiring, retention and promotion, and for the acts of persecution against me.

I have also clearly demonstrated that the institutions of higher education do not have a functioning mechanism to address grievances, since I have searched for 20 years to find one and found only stonewalling: no one wants to see, no one wants to hear, no one wants to speak, no one wants to know. This is the first time I was given a hearing to present my case.

As someone who experienced the full brunt of communist education from kindergarten through college, and lived for over 20 years among the liberals in the Academia, I am highly qualified to testify that the higher education in this country has become a copy of a communist education system. Under communism, every educator must be a communist in good standing, there are no exceptions; in this country, every educator must be a liberal in good standing, no exceptions. Because of this, my two sons had to go through the same kind of ideological indoctrination as I did when I was their age, just to secure the minimum requirement for a decent job, a college diploma.

It is unacceptable that the State of New York, or any other state, is required to defend discrimination, and uses taxpayers’ money to do so. As is evident from the recent rejection of my application and from the defendant’s lack of interest in mediation, the higher education is totally committed to continue in this discrimination even after being fully exposed, and is unwilling and unable to change from within. Only outside intervention could lead to a meaningful reform that is essential to restore checks and balances, ethical and scholarly standards, honesty and credibility. The universities must disclose the political make-up of their tenured faculty, must recognize that the absence of conservatives among their faculties is a problem, and take proactive measures to assure that the political orientation of tenured professors is more representative of the American society.

The lower Court dismissed this case under the excuse that it lacked jurisdiction. I believe the Court understood that the measures necessary to address this complaint in a meaningful way could affect the whole SUNY system. This Court has such jurisdiction and could take such measures. This could also be the last opportunity for the judicial system to address this form of discrimination and corruption; there is no one coming in my footsteps. No democratic society can tolerate secret, extra-judicial authorities that have virtually unlimited and unrestricted power, and the higher education in this country has become such authority. Wherefore, I pray this Court rules in my favor.

Presented on October 7, 2008, at the US Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY.