Tuesday, May 17, 2011

The Perks and Pitfalls of Wolfensohn’s Global Life

Below please find my op-ed for The Claremont Independent written before this weekend's commencement ceremony, which, in all honesty, was mercifully brief.

The Perks and Pitfalls of Wolfensohn’s Global Life
By Charles C. Johnson

You can tell a lot about our college’s hopes for its students by the president’s choice of commencement speakers. This year’s is a should-have been CMCer and we are could-be James Wolfensohns.

The “banker to the poor” was no Mother Theresa. He took no oath of poverty and amassed a $350 million fortune as consultant, bureaucrat, think tanker, and above all, banker. He all but coined the term “too big to fail” when he plotted to bail out Chrysler in the 1980s. He went on to become a worldly World Bank bureaucrat, who, not content with his own millions, misspent billions on liberal good works to make poverty history. It persists, despite him, or perhaps, to spite him. No matter. He got rich countries to write off $42 billion of debt incurred by poor nations assuring his place as “the Elvis of Economics,” as Bono, another past CMC guest, called him. He demands the U.S. government to spend, spend, spend on microfinance, foreign aid, debt relief, etc., etc. You might even say he’s nothing but a hound dog for liberal causes du jour.

After the World Bank, Wolfensohn turned to the Middle East, where his special talents made him “special envoy” to direct Gaza’s economy. He might have reasoned that with his knack for networking he could stop the Palestinians from murdering Israelis. When all else fails, name dropping beats bomb dropping, as Churchill might have said. Alas Wolfensohn’s bore offensive didn’t take because, as he told the Jerusalem Post in 2006, matters were “above my pay grade.” Initially blaming Hamas for murdering Israelis next door and even doubting whether America would take kindly to similar acts, he soon recanted and got right with diplo-speak by blaming Bush for not taking the peace process seriously enough. Bush’s real offense, though, is not taking Wolfensohn seriously enough.

If that weren’t enough to assure his seat at the world wonk table, he set about badmouthing America. America, he tells us, spends far too much on her own defense and too little on what the foreign policy glitterati call “foreign aid.” You know these lines by rote, if not by heart, if you’ve taken a Haley I.R. course… Terrorism is handmaiden to poverty and not ideology. Wolfensohn, who warned of a “tsunami” of poverty, said he had the cure for what ails us in the fight against terrorism – more money. We bailed out autos why not bail out third world tin pot despots?

By the time people realized that that policy failed – much as they are starting to realize that the Wolfensohn-endorsed microfinance project has also failed – the “force of nature” would blow over the next project for though he was an admitted “late developer,” he was an early – and masterly – networker. Despite his lackluster academic credential – he failed several university exams – he talked his way from a Sydney tenement to Harvard Business School. He got the job of World Bank president when Bill Clinton, at Wolfensohn’s Wyoming home, asked him what he would do there – not exactly a meritocracy.

Wolfensohn even found time for a little culture – playing cello before Carnegie Hall, with his pal Yo-Yo Ma, fencing for the 1956 Olympic team, and globe-trotting of the sort you might read in a CMC admission essay: “In July 1973 Elaine and I took a rare break from the mayhem of New York and Schroders. We were sailing on a 72-foot ketch from Panama to the Galapagos ... the voyage was memorable, and the night watches along with the stars and accompanying dolphins and occasional whales were an experience never to be forgotten.”

With a bit of pluck and a lot of luck, the self-described little fat boy, born to downtrodden British Jews in the Depression in Australia, aspired to greatness. He wanted to be a “global player” and plotted accordingly in his room: “What would I have to do to become prime minister, a leading banker, a judge of the Supreme Court, an Olympian, a Rhodes scholar? What would it look like to be Mr Justice Wolfensohn or governor-general Wolfensohn?'”

What, indeed! Unsurprisingly, the answer to this, and nearly every question confronted by Wolfensohn is money – and a lot of it. Money buys all sorts of things – acceptance, accolades, and even access, according to reports from an anti-corruption watchdog group.

Money is why, according to Bloomberg, Wolfensohn overlooked the shady finances of international fugitive and financial criminal, Viktor Kozeny, the infamous “pirate of Prague.” Kozeny, flush with cheating Czech taxpayers out of a billion dollars, turned to Wolfensohn to sanitize his next deal in Azerbaijan. Wolfensohn met with Kozeny twice and gave his coveted World Bank endorsement. Kozeny then went on to defraud investors to the tune of $182 million. According to the Government Accountability Project, Wolfensohn “lent his reputation and his institution’s support to precisely the kind of fraud and theft he so frequently denounced.” “None of the World Bank officials in a position to anticipate corruption was able to expose it, given that the bank president had helped to conceal it,” the report noted. He behaved less than admirably, which compounds the irony of having a financier with shady ethics ties at the same time Claremont considers an ethics general education requirement.

Wolfensohn refuses to tell that tale. He doesn’t namedrop there. Nor does anybody else, for that matter. Wolfensohn’s underling, Johannes Linn, tasked by Wolfensohn with investigating the alleged corruption on the part of Kozeny, became director of the Wolfensohn Center at the Brookings Institution when he left the bank. Later Linn denied ever having heard of Viktor Kozeny. But Beatrice Edwards of the Government Accountability Project, a nonpartisan watchdog group, points out that Kozeny was “the most notorious international financial criminal in the region. She considers it “unimaginable that Linn would not have heard of him.”

Of course that story didn’t make the cut in his book, A Global Life. Perhaps he learned once and for all that money, while it buys access to the clubs he wanted to join, cannot buy the things of the soul. For that, you need more than mere networking. “You can’t succeed with just a good Rolodex if you can’t deliver. You have to perform to the absolute highest standard.” And it sure helps if you have friends, even if fickle. In contrast to class-based Britain, Wolfensohn loves America: but even as he talks about how great America is, he namedrops. “The thing I revere about this country is that you can deal with people as people, regardless of their wealth. I could today call up Warren Buffet or whoever is the richest person in this country - I know most of them - for a coffee.”

We learn from Wolfensohn’s memoirs that he is a great many things and he will tell you about all of them but one thing he is not is a devoted family man. He lived as his memoir suggests – globally, not locally, copping to not knowing his children and confessing that while his cancer-stricken wife begged him not to take a job that led to being away from home, he took it anyway. Those were his “lost years.”

Some of us can’t afford lost years – these past few ones having often been lost enough. As we ponder commencement and family gathers, it is difficult not to be lost in thought about what is next. Here’s a thought: We ought to wish to be good husbands, good fathers, good co-workers, good sons, and good citizens. Our parents – like all good parents – gave us a better life. And so we don’t seek a global life, but a good one. If we are lucky, maybe it’ll be a great one.

What the College Accused Me Of -- Or, Why I Haven't Been Blogging

Now that I have graduated it is time to explain to my readers why it is that I have been incommunicado these past days.

My cheating, lying ex-girlfriend, Tina Nguyen (Thien-Nga Nguyen) CMC '11, was apparently very upset with my blog post describing her as a cheating, lying ex-girlfriend who was making stuff about me and sending it to my admirers on Twitter.

Tina then made up a frivolous complaint against me saying that I had "harassed" and "defamed" her and brought in the Dean of Students. There was only one problem: I had, in her own writing, emails and chats that showed she had cheated and lied.



Here's the back story: I received an email from Dean Mary Spellman before I left the country saying that I had to come in and talk to her about an investigation she was completing. Apparently, I was being "investigated" for a violation of the school's Code of Conduct. I immediately called Dean Spellman and she kept insisting that I come in and meet with her. I told her I would not until she told me what I was accused of and who was making the accusations. She said I was accused of "harassment." I thought she was joking, but she assured me she was not, and said, "Well, I'm innocent."  She demanded I come in again and I told her I couldn't because I was leaving for overseas during Senior Week. I refused until I could have both my recorder and my attorney present. (I did that because I may be deciding to sue both my ex-girlfriend, the Dean of Students, and the College.)

Emails ensued and she finally admitted that I was being investigated for "harassment" and "defamation" for a blog post I wrote.

I explained to her that I was not going to come in until I was told what I was charged with and who had accused me. I told her that I had retained counsel -- who worked pro bono, by the way -- and that I would not be attending as it did not fit in my schedule. (I was leaving the country within 36 hours.)


I also informed her that her investigation into my speech was illegal and in direct violation of both the college's promise of free speech and the Leonard Law.  I complied with the investigation -- by telephone -- though I made clear I did not have to, and gave her a list of witnesses that would corroborate everything I said, which they did. Dean Spellman still did not allow me to have my digital recorder and my attorney could not come back from D.C. fast enough. I filed a counter-claim against Nguyen for lying, abuse, and misuse of the school's procedures.

Need less to say, I was cleared of all of the charges against me. Here's a letter from Dean Spellman:
Dear Charles:

As we have previously communicated, I have conducted an investigation into a complaint made by Ms. Tina Nguyen, which alleged that certain comments made on your blog about the student were in violation of the College’s Basic Rule of Conduct.

As part of my investigation, I conducted interviews with you, the complainant, and the witnesses identified by both of you. I also reviewed the documentary information provided by you and the complainant.

Based on my review of the information provided, I do not find evidence that warrants further action by the College. As a result, no disciplinary charges will be filed in this matter, and no record of the complaint or this investigation will be included in your educational record.

I have also conducted an investigation in response to your counter-complaint. This investigation included interviewing witnesses identified by you, communications with Ms. Nguyen, and a review of the documentary information you provided.  Based on my review of the information provided, I do not find evidence that warrants further action by the College.  As a result, no disciplinary charges will be filed against Ms. Nguyen.

Please also note that, pursuant to Section XIV (A) of the Judicial Procedures, all records and communications related to this process will be maintained as confidential records within the Dean of Students Office.

If you have any concerns or objections to my determinations, please be advised that you have the right to appeal my decision to President Gann.

Sincerely,

Dean Spellman
_________________________________________
Mary J. Spellman, EdD
Dean of Students
Claremont McKenna College
Heggblade Center 104

Claremont, CA 91711


My advice to any male wrongly accused of harassment? Refuse to meet until they tell you the charges and fight like the devil. That's how I avoided the attacks on me.

Here's one letter that I wrote her on May 4, 2011:
Hi Dean Spellman,  
As you have still not told me what the specific complaint(s) is/are against me and only after I asked repeatedly did you tell me on the phone that I was facing a "harassment" and "defamation" inquest for something I wrote on my personal website, I'm afraid I cannot meet with you at all, though again I'd be happy to answer any specific questions you may have in writing or to meet with you with the presence of my digital recorder and attorney. I am sure that you are mistaken about whatever it is that I am accused of doing and ask that you stop this Kafka-esque inquisition against me, but if you feel the need to pursue this further, please know that I will be taking it to the highest levels.  
Why do I need a digital recorder? Here's why: A transcript of any conversation we might have is very important, especially in this case as I may decide to pursue legal action against either the person or persons making what I suspect are utterly false accusations against me designed to cause me stress and terror. This is even more the case as you have explicitly threatened me with not being able to graduate.  Unfortunately, as a male college student accused of harassment, merely to be "investigated" for harassment would ruin me in the eyes of my peers and, given that there is a public website that posts slander against me, professionally as well.  
Moreover, to be accused of defamation, which I'm not sure you have any power to enforce or investigate anyways, is potentially damaging to my career as a journalist with The Wall Street Journal, especially as I prepare to go to Norway on one of the most important trips I have ever taken. 
In past emails I have answered your questions and will answer still more of them, if you wish. But I am very pressed for time as I am about to leave the country and finish my academic work by May 6 when grades are due. As it currently stands, you are interfering with my academic responsibilities as a student and my professional obligations post-college and causing me a lot of anguish in the final days of my educational career by failing to answer the simplest of questions about what I am being investigated for, who is launching the investigation against me, and why.
You might think that I am taking this too hard, but to put it mildly I am frankly terrified of the school's procedures. Claremont McKenna, after all, has been found of having FIRE's speech code of the month in February 2011. In the past, friends of mine who were innocent of the charges against them have been found guilty on the flimsiest of evidence, while people who have assaulted women have been given slaps on the wrist while the district attorney brings a case against them. The last person who was "investigated" for something he wrote was Brad Kvederis, who won his lawsuit against the college in the late '90s for an undisclosed sum. His newsletter was a saucy satire; my website is an award-winning news site.  
 I am especially worried as you have not been forthcoming with what the subject of your investigation is. You first told me that I was being "investigated" for a violation of the school's code of conduct. You would not tell me what I was being investigated for until I called you on the telephone and, after I asked repeatedly, told me it was for harassment and defamation, neither of which are defined in the school's code of conduct. You then informed me the past night that it was for something I wrote on my personal website, which you have no right to use against me by virtue of California's Leonard Law, as I informed later. Then, when I agreed to meet with you and to answer your questions, I asked to have my attorney and/or my digital recorder present so as to have a transcript that might be used later. You refused my basic request to meet with you and you alone.  
As I have already noted to you, you have no standing, no legal right to "investigate" me for something I have written in print on my personal website by virtue of California's Leonard Law. If my accuser or accusers think I am afoul of the Leonard Law's protections, they can challenge me in court, if they see fit, where I will have more safeguards than one dean deciding, on a lark, to investigate me for something someone or someones said against me, especially when that dean has a history of calling students into her office for offensive lunch time conversations.
 I implore you to let me answer your questions via email and/or to let me have a digital recorder present. (My attorney is not able to come back to the West Coast on short notice.) Nevertheless, I am certain that I will be exonerated because truth is an absolute defense against defamation and "harassment" does not apply here.  
Again, I assure you that I want to help with any good faith investigation against me. I'm sure we can put this behind us.   
Thank you again,
Charles