James William Anderson PhD And The Chicago Institute For Psychoanalysis In possible violation of the APA Ethics Code, created negative innuendo that a student might be a depressed suicidal IN FRONT OF AN ENTIRE CLASSROOM! Chicago Illinois

I was in the same psychobiography class as "Anonymous" that was taught by Dr. Anderson. The event to which Anonymous refers simply did not happen. I consulted with my friend who was also in the class, and he, too, was of the belief that this exchange did not happen as presented by the complainant. Some other points:

First, the correct way to refer to James Anderson is Dr., not Mr. He has a Ph.D., which stands for a doctorate of philosophy. 

Second, I'm very amused by the description "merely a psychologist." Clearly, you are unfamiliar with the field of psychology. While Psychiatry and Psychology have overlap, they are two separate disciplines that have different orientations. Psychology is an ever evolving field that has experienced many shifts in recent decades. It would be a waste of time to explain the orientations, goals, and responsibilities of each profession to a lay person.

Third, Dr. Anderson has degrees from Princeton and the University of Chicago, which are two of the most prestigious universities in the world. If you wish to call into question his judgment that is your prerogative; however, impugning his academic pedigree is clearly going to get you nowhere--that is if we assume you have anywhere to go in the first place.

Fourth, are the lawyers who respond to this unemployed? Anyway, I bet you all had an awesome time at John Marshall.

Fifth, oh Anonymous, you certainly are imaginative and litigious. A rather unfortunate combination. Surely you can find a DSM IV diagnosis that captures whatever you are.

But this was really a pointless exercise to speak beyond the simple point that the events you describe simply did not happen. 

Please be advised, Professor and his sidekick (the yakkity yak he was yakkity yakking with), that one of the major campus watchdog groups, to which I submitted a case after receiving what I perceived to be a harassing email from a lower level dean at the school, has now accepted the case.

If the two culprits, who I feel engaged in verbal disparaging of me, didn't like me engaging in free speech right back, they will get A LOT MORE of it should the issue become publicized.

What I can say is that the woman appeared to have an issue with someone leaving her student group over what the person considered an ethical issue with the constitution of the group (the wife of a faculty member was apparently given full officer status, including voting rights, despite what another student felt was a clear conflict of interest). This, too, shall make it to the news media should I be allowed to comment on that aspect of the issue.

Finally. Again. A volunteer polygraph will be offered to the "court of public opinion" that I believe I correctly interpreted that the professor appeared to be trying to hint that he was looking for a possible client, that the interpretation was based on a number of individual events that took place over the entire course of the quarter, that verbal disparagement ensued towards the end of the quarter when it appeared the prof was feeling rejected by a student who wasn't into his Freudian views, and that despite the hyperbole in some other posts (of course I don't think there's a connection with the past CEO of NW Memorial--that's some "negative innuendo" in there to show how ridiculous it is to make outrageous connections just based on pure coincidence, which is what the prof did in class), I am not "malicious" but downright ANGRY at my rude treatment by this professor and this school.

And might I suggest that had the sidekick involved in the yakfest spent more time getting her degree wrapped up, instead of yakking about classmates, it might not have taken the secretary 20 YEARS to finish a degree at the exact same school! I found the person's LinkedIn page. Oh my God! She's a secretary, and she thinks she's the little protege of a college professor from the psych department that she yap yaps with.

If you two want to do research on your classmates (or, in the case of the professor, of a student), try going down to the research department and reading up on the guidelines and ethics involved. I highly doubt that not obtaining informed consent is backed by the university. Maybe if it gets to the national news media, someone can ask them to clarify just what the heck this professor thought he was doing in pretending he was proving denial of a research subject that didn't consent to being a research subject.

To end: The school appears to have a "pattern" of reseach ethics complaints (not stating they are bona fide ethics issues, just that there have been complaints, though I am not privvy to detailed info about how they were resolved). Just Google "Michael Bailey ethics investigation" for more on the other issue they had over there at that school. And from the same department, no less! Unbelievable.

Now see? If the prof had anything to do with the dean sending me a nasty email to try to get me to censor a different posting (a whole different complaint) at all, it backfired. Now you have more complaints on this posting, plus a pending potential media case just waiting to proceed should further action from the dean occur.

By the way, does anyone think it puts the university in the position of looking "arbitrary and capricious" when there are numerous OTHER postings on the internet about any number of issues, yet they're harassing moi? And the one who openly advocates some more moderate views than what often passes for political discourse in politically radical modern academia? I'm thinking that kinda looks "arbitrary and capricious," but I'll let the lawyers decide, later, should this escalate further.

And who harasses students the week before mid-terms and right in the middle of the worst economic crisis we've seen in modern times? Pray tell?

I will have that dean's head on bad PR plate over this latest outrage. And that's in addition to the thousands of dollars in lost tuition revenue.

Shame on you all.

Shame.

AND I WONDER IF THIS COULD BE THE CASE HERE.

IF YOU ARE UPSET ABOUT YOUR PROFESSOR, MAYBE YOU NEED TO WRITE YOUR CONCERNS IN THE FREE SITE ESPECIALLY FOR EXPRESSING THOSE CONCERNS IT IS CALLED RATE MY PROFESSORS.COM AND IT IS DESIGNED FOR STUDENTS TO EVALUATE
PROFESSORS AND PASS ON THOSE CONCERNS TO OTHER STUDENTS...


ALL OF THIS MANIC POSTING OF MULTIPLE MESSAGES DOES NOT HELP YOUR CAUSE. WE KNOW WHO POSTED THEM.

MAKES ME WONDER IF YOU APPROACHED THIS GUY WITH ROMANTIC OVERTURES AND HE REJECTED YOU OR YOU ARE OFF YOUR BIPOLAR MEDS OR SOMETHING...

ANYWAY, REMIND ME TO STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM THAT PLACE...

I AM GLAD I AM IN LAW AND MAY HAVE TO PRESIDE OVER A SANITY HEARING SOMEDAY.

....the original "Anonymous" poster is any relation to Rita the nutty MD from Mayfield Heights, Ohio ? Sisters? Cousins? Best friends? Soul mates?

From a chapter in "The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience" by Mike Shermer (the one who writes for the magazine, SciAm) titled "Psychoanalysis as Pseudoscience"...

BEGIN

"Thought Control--The entire Freudian enterprise appears more and more like an authoritarian religious cult than a scientific movement. Indeed, several authors have pointed out that psychoanalysis has many features in common with brainwashing (Bailey, 1960, 1965; Salter, 1996).

Frank Sulloway (1979b) describes the indoctrination characteristic of training analyses in which any objection...viewed as a resistance to overcome.

Jeffrey Masson (1990) provides fascinating insight into psychoanalysis as thought control and aggression. Masson's training analysis involved a completely one-sided relationship in which the analyst had all of the power and in which the trainee was expected to put up with any and all indignities (p. 376)."

END

That's EXACTLY what they do! It's like cults with their "love-bombing" techniques, where they get really really really fake kinda friendly real fast, so the person, if they're in their right mind, can just tell that something's up and not quite right. This is precisely what happened! First, the kooky Mrs. R finds me on Facebook right out of the blue, needs volunteers for some school thing, but then proceeds to act kinda overly friendly, with weird comments about how any time you can spend with her is great, and how it will just make her day, her year even, if you'll keep attending these events. Something seemed fake, but hey, they looked a little desperate for student bodies, so I took the bait at first. THEN, there's this psychobiography class. The lady takes this class, too, and that's where this Freudian professor starts with his picking out negative traits about the three different historical figures I was trying to decide on for my research project. Not just Poe, mind you, but 2 others, and every time, he picked out something awful and pathological.

Then, he starts running this kind of infomercial in class, how after he mentioned Poe was "depressed," he then informed us he worked with such cases. Then, when I switched to Carl Jung, all of a sudden he mentioned a tie with some Jung institute. And then, when I mentioned being an "introvert," he sent a creepy email about wanting to show me some Jung lecture slides, but also mentioned he worked with "patients" who were introverts! He sounded like a used car salesman of psychology, like those guys in polyester suits and gold chains around the neck. You know, kinda really tacky.

And then, as class progressed and I was getting REALLY creeped out by this loser, then he turned nasty and started antagonizing me and gossiping about me. Aha! Just like cults. They initially "love-bomb" (I've never joined one, but I've read about cult psychology), then attack and malign the ones who are not being compliant enough.

Yep. EXACTLY.

By the way, I'll volunteer to take a polygraph that all this is true, no matter how Professor Creep wants to try and spin his way out of this supposed misunderstanding.

I wonder, would HE pass a polygraph if asked if he was trying to get a new client? Or if he became psychologically abusive and verbally abusive? I wonder. And I think not.

Sorry for all the add-ons, but since some jerk at my school just sent me a nasty email about this issue from last year (and sent it a week before mid-terms, which I think was intentionally meant to harass me and stress me out), I'm bashing these creep Freudians some more. Bash bash bash. And there are tons of professors out there that I have contacted about this issue, too, and they agreed the guy was out-of-line.

Finally, one more nasty email from some of the lower level deans whining to remove the posts (what, CENSORSHIP from a prestigious research university? How the heck do you people handle PEER REVIEW if you can't handle me???), and rest assured, you WILL be the subject of some serious media attention when I get a hold of enough of the conservative (and even some liberal) critics of what goes on in often radical, left-wing academia.

STOP HARASSING ME. I will out your name on Fox News if it gets to that point. And I WILL pass a polygraph that what happened happened (yes, I know it would not get to that point, that extreme, but that's how confident I am that I'm interpreting this accurately...I'd even take a polygraph).

By the way, Spring is my last quarter at the school. Professor creep, who I now believe may have had something to do with the most recent harassing email I received from a lower level official, has cost the school close to $8,000 in lost revenue (maybe more if anyone else bothers me between now and the beginning of Spring quarter, in which case, the total lost revenue will be something like $10,000).

I DO NOT NEED THIS DEGREE IF IT MEANS PUTTING UP WITH HARASSMENT AND CONTINUING TO GIVE YOU PEOPLE MY BUSINESS.

From a chapter in "The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience" by Mike Shermer (the one who writes for the magazine, SciAm) titled "Psychoanalysis as Pseudoscience"...

BEGIN

"Thought Control--The entire Freudian enterprise appears more and more like an authoritarian religious cult than a scientific movement. Indeed, several authors have pointed out that psychoanalysis has many features in common with brainwashing (Bailey, 1960, 1965; Salter, 1996).

Frank Sulloway (1979b) describes the indoctrination characteristic of training analyses in which any objection...viewed as a resistance to overcome.

Jeffrey Masson (1990) provides fascinating insight into psychoanalysis as thought control and aggression. Masson's training analysis involved a completely one-sided relationship in which the analyst had all of the power and in which the trainee was expected to put up with any and all indignities (p. 376)."

END

That's EXACTLY what they do! It's like cults with their "love-bombing" techniques, where they get really really really fake kinda friendly real fast, so the person, if they're in their right mind, can just tell that something's up and not quite right. This is precisely what happened! First, the kooky Mrs. R finds me on Facebook right out of the blue, needs volunteers for some school thing, but then proceeds to act kinda overly friendly, with weird comments about how any time you can spend with her is great, and how it will just make her day, her year even, if you'll keep attending these events. Something seemed fake, but hey, they looked a little desperate for student bodies, so I took the bait at first. THEN, there's this psychobiography class. The lady takes this class, too, and that's where this Freudian professor starts with his picking out negative traits about the three different historical figures I was trying to decide on for my research project. Not just Poe, mind you, but 2 others, and every time, he picked out something awful and pathological.

Then, he starts running this kind of infomercial in class, how after he mentioned Poe was "depressed," he then informed us he worked with such cases. Then, when I switched to Carl Jung, all of a sudden he mentioned a tie with some Jung institute. And then, when I mentioned being an "introvert," he sent a creepy email about wanting to show me some Jung lecture slides, but also mentioned he worked with "patients" who were introverts! He sounded like a used car salesman of psychology, like those guys in polyester suits and gold chains around the neck. You know, kinda really tacky.

And then, as class progressed and I was getting REALLY creeped out by this loser, then he turned nasty and started antagonizing me and gossiping about me. Aha! Just like cults. They initially "love-bomb" (I've never joined one, but I've read about cult psychology), then attack and malign the ones who are not being compliant enough.

Yep. EXACTLY.

By the way, I'll volunteer to take a polygraph that all this is true, no matter how Professor Creep wants to try and spin his way out of this supposed misunderstanding.

I wonder, would HE pass a polygraph if asked if he was trying to get a new client? Or if he became psychologically abusive and verbally abusive? I wonder. And I think not.

Sorry for all the add-ons, but since some jerk at my school just sent me a nasty email about this issue from last year (and sent it a week before mid-terms, which I think was intentionally meant to harass me and stress me out), I'm bashing these creep Freudians some more. Bash bash bash. And there are tons of professors out there that I have contacted about this issue, too, and they agreed the guy was out-of-line.

Finally, one more nasty email from some of the lower level deans whining to remove the posts (what, CENSORSHIP from a prestigious research university? How the heck do you people handle PEER REVIEW if you can't handle me???), and rest assured, you WILL be the subject of some serious media attention when I get a hold of enough of the conservative (and even some liberal) critics of what goes on in often radical, left-wing academia.

STOP HARASSING ME. I will out your name on Fox News if it gets to that point. And I WILL pass a polygraph that what happened happened (yes, I know it would not get to that point, that extreme, but that's how confident I am that I'm interpreting this accurately...I'd even take a polygraph).

By the way, Spring is my last quarter at the school. Professor creep, who I now believe may have had something to do with the most recent harassing email I received from a lower level official, has cost the school close to $8,000 in lost revenue (maybe more if anyone else bothers me between now and the beginning of Spring quarter, in which case, the total lost revenue will be something like $10,000).

I DO NOT NEED THIS DEGREE IF IT MEANS PUTTING UP WITH HARASSMENT AND CONTINUING TO GIVE YOU PEOPLE MY BUSINESS.

From a chapter in "The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience" by Mike Shermer (the one who writes for the magazine, SciAm) titled "Psychoanalysis as Pseudoscience"...

BEGIN

"Thought Control--The entire Freudian enterprise appears more and more like an authoritarian religious cult than a scientific movement. Indeed, several authors have pointed out that psychoanalysis has many features in common with brainwashing (Bailey, 1960, 1965; Salter, 1996).

Frank Sulloway (1979b) describes the indoctrination characteristic of training analyses in which any objection...viewed as a resistance to overcome.

Jeffrey Masson (1990) provides fascinating insight into psychoanalysis as thought control and aggression. Masson's training analysis involved a completely one-sided relationship in which the analyst had all of the power and in which the trainee was expected to put up with any and all indignities (p. 376)."

END

That's EXACTLY what they do! It's like cults with their "love-bombing" techniques, where they get really really really fake kinda friendly real fast, so the person, if they're in their right mind, can just tell that something's up and not quite right. This is precisely what happened! First, the kooky Mrs. R finds me on Facebook right out of the blue, needs volunteers for some school thing, but then proceeds to act kinda overly friendly, with weird comments about how any time you can spend with her is great, and how it will just make her day, her year even, if you'll keep attending these events. Something seemed fake, but hey, they looked a little desperate for student bodies, so I took the bait at first. THEN, there's this psychobiography class. The lady takes this class, too, and that's where this Freudian professor starts with his picking out negative traits about the three different historical figures I was trying to decide on for my research project. Not just Poe, mind you, but 2 others, and every time, he picked out something awful and pathological.

Then, he starts running this kind of infomercial in class, how after he mentioned Poe was "depressed," he then informed us he worked with such cases. Then, when I switched to Carl Jung, all of a sudden he mentioned a tie with some Jung institute. And then, when I mentioned being an "introvert," he sent a creepy email about wanting to show me some Jung lecture slides, but also mentioned he worked with "patients" who were introverts! He sounded like a used car salesman of psychology, like those guys in polyester suits and gold chains around the neck. You know, kinda really tacky.

And then, as class progressed and I was getting REALLY creeped out by this loser, then he turned nasty and started antagonizing me and gossiping about me. Aha! Just like cults. They initially "love-bomb" (I've never joined one, but I've read about cult psychology), then attack and malign the ones who are not being compliant enough.

Yep. EXACTLY.

By the way, I'll volunteer to take a polygraph that all this is true, no matter how Professor Creep wants to try and spin his way out of this supposed misunderstanding.

I wonder, would HE pass a polygraph if asked if he was trying to get a new client? Or if he became psychologically abusive and verbally abusive? I wonder. And I think not.

Sorry for all the add-ons, but since some jerk at my school just sent me a nasty email about this issue from last year (and sent it a week before mid-terms, which I think was intentionally meant to harass me and stress me out), I'm bashing these creep Freudians some more. Bash bash bash. And there are tons of professors out there that I have contacted about this issue, too, and they agreed the guy was out-of-line.

Finally, one more nasty email from some of the lower level deans whining to remove the posts (what, CENSORSHIP from a prestigious research university? How the heck do you people handle PEER REVIEW if you can't handle me???), and rest assured, you WILL be the subject of some serious media attention when I get a hold of enough of the conservative (and even some liberal) critics of what goes on in often radical, left-wing academia.

STOP HARASSING ME. I will out your name on Fox News if it gets to that point. And I WILL pass a polygraph that what happened happened (yes, I know it would not get to that point, that extreme, but that's how confident I am that I'm interpreting this accurately...I'd even take a polygraph).

By the way, Spring is my last quarter at the school. Professor creep, who I now believe may have had something to do with the most recent harassing email I received from a lower level official, has cost the school close to $8,000 in lost revenue (maybe more if anyone else bothers me between now and the beginning of Spring quarter, in which case, the total lost revenue will be something like $10,000).

I DO NOT NEED THIS DEGREE IF IT MEANS PUTTING UP WITH HARASSMENT AND CONTINUING TO GIVE YOU PEOPLE MY BUSINESS.

From a chapter in "The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience" by Mike Shermer (the one who writes for the magazine, SciAm) titled "Psychoanalysis as Pseudoscience"...

BEGIN

"Thought Control--The entire Freudian enterprise appears more and more like an authoritarian religious cult than a scientific movement. Indeed, several authors have pointed out that psychoanalysis has many features in common with brainwashing (Bailey, 1960, 1965; Salter, 1996).

Frank Sulloway (1979b) describes the indoctrination characteristic of training analyses in which any objection...viewed as a resistance to overcome.

Jeffrey Masson (1990) provides fascinating insight into psychoanalysis as thought control and aggression. Masson's training analysis involved a completely one-sided relationship in which the analyst had all of the power and in which the trainee was expected to put up with any and all indignities (p. 376)."

END

That's EXACTLY what they do! It's like cults with their "love-bombing" techniques, where they get really really really fake kinda friendly real fast, so the person, if they're in their right mind, can just tell that something's up and not quite right. This is precisely what happened! First, the kooky Mrs. R finds me on Facebook right out of the blue, needs volunteers for some school thing, but then proceeds to act kinda overly friendly, with weird comments about how any time you can spend with her is great, and how it will just make her day, her year even, if you'll keep attending these events. Something seemed fake, but hey, they looked a little desperate for student bodies, so I took the bait at first. THEN, there's this psychobiography class. The lady takes this class, too, and that's where this Freudian professor starts with his picking out negative traits about the three different historical figures I was trying to decide on for my research project. Not just Poe, mind you, but 2 others, and every time, he picked out something awful and pathological.

Then, he starts running this kind of infomercial in class, how after he mentioned Poe was "depressed," he then informed us he worked with such cases. Then, when I switched to Carl Jung, all of a sudden he mentioned a tie with some Jung institute. And then, when I mentioned being an "introvert," he sent a creepy email about wanting to show me some Jung lecture slides, but also mentioned he worked with "patients" who were introverts! He sounded like a used car salesman of psychology, like those guys in polyester suits and gold chains around the neck. You know, kinda really tacky.

And then, as class progressed and I was getting REALLY creeped out by this loser, then he turned nasty and started antagonizing me and gossiping about me. Aha! Just like cults. They initially "love-bomb" (I've never joined one, but I've read about cult psychology), then attack and malign the ones who are not being compliant enough.

Yep. EXACTLY.

By the way, I'll volunteer to take a polygraph that all this is true, no matter how Professor Creep wants to try and spin his way out of this supposed misunderstanding.

I wonder, would HE pass a polygraph if asked if he was trying to get a new client? Or if he became psychologically abusive and verbally abusive? I wonder. And I think not.

Sorry for all the add-ons, but since some jerk at my school just sent me a nasty email about this issue from last year (and sent it a week before mid-terms, which I think was intentionally meant to harass me and stress me out), I'm bashing these creep Freudians some more. Bash bash bash. And there are tons of professors out there that I have contacted about this issue, too, and they agreed the guy was out-of-line.

Finally, one more nasty email from some of the lower level deans whining to remove the posts (what, CENSORSHIP from a prestigious research university? How the heck do you people handle PEER REVIEW if you can't handle me???), and rest assured, you WILL be the subject of some serious media attention when I get a hold of enough of the conservative (and even some liberal) critics of what goes on in often radical, left-wing academia.

STOP HARASSING ME. I will out your name on Fox News if it gets to that point. And I WILL pass a polygraph that what happened happened (yes, I know it would not get to that point, that extreme, but that's how confident I am that I'm interpreting this accurately...I'd even take a polygraph).

By the way, Spring is my last quarter at the school. Professor creep, who I now believe may have had something to do with the most recent harassing email I received from a lower level official, has cost the school close to $8,000 in lost revenue (maybe more if anyone else bothers me between now and the beginning of Spring quarter, in which case, the total lost revenue will be something like $10,000).

I DO NOT NEED THIS DEGREE IF IT MEANS PUTTING UP WITH HARASSMENT AND CONTINUING TO GIVE YOU PEOPLE MY BUSINESS.

Weasel PhD rebuts as follows:

>>This complaint against me is unfounded, incorrect, malicious, and outrageous.
This complaint is based on my opinion and interpretation of a NUMBER of events that unfolded, and should it go to court (which we know isn't happening, because Weasel PhD knows that once discovery progresses, Mrs. R's testimony just might prove that yes, indeed, this man had A LOT to say about me, and that he was attempting to use me as some type of informal research case study to try and prove his zany theory about Freud and how people are in "denial").

In my opinion, he "created negative innuendo." At no time did I state that he factually called me "suicidal," just that he immediately objected to me when I stated that I wasn't like Poe in that way (he had also picked out negative traits with the 2 OTHER subjects I was thinking of choosing, as I switched my topic THREE times! Kenneth Branagh was deemed "grandiose," and Carl Jung was deemed "split personality," but the catch is that Mr. Professor Weasel teaches that there may be commonalities between you and who you picked, then proceeded to treat me, the one who told his student friend who took him in a former class that I didn't like Freudians, like maybe those are the similar traits. I fully believe he did that on purpose, just to get back at me.

He also sent me some creepy email about how he has "introverts" as patients (after I had mentioned in class that I was an introvert), and it strongly appeared as if he was trying to hint that he might like to get a new client (I admit he didn't solicit outright, but he repeatedly kept trying to get me in after class about different things, and it started to seem like perhaps he, being into this zany psychoanalytic theory, thought perhaps he could hint at the possibility that he might be available as a professional, as in you know, if I really felt I was a "grandiose" or "depressed" little "split-personality."

I specifically overheard this man make disparaging comments about me, and I wonder if the four other students he consulted with were the ones who were also in agreement with his outdated Freudian theory and not the many many other students in that class. I see no one else has come to his defense, I had one joke to me about something private (I will not disclose this nice fellow's name, but it was NOT positive towards the professor), and which related to the perception that this professor was a little wacky. Interestingly, I cannot tell what anyone ELSE might have written in the student evaluations because the sleaze has apparently asked that all of the written comments be HIDDEN. Why? All I posted was that the dean had to ask him, twice, to get into compliance with FERPA (there's one dean in particular who is extremely impartial and professional and does follow-up on issues, and he did make sure this man was brought into compliance). Why hide that? It was relevant to the course. Or were there other negative complaints from other students? As in, not the four Freudian buddies of his.

Seriously. Go Google "Freud Wars" on the internet. It's well known that when attacked for being non-empirical, some hardcore orthodox Freudians go on the attack, which is what I believed happened to me. And I strongly strongly care that truly vulnerable populations DO NOT get harmed by such jerks, so that is why I am speaking out. I care about other people, too, not just me.

>>I hoped to let it go, because I believed that anyone who read through it would see that there is no substance to the complaint.
Let's go to court, Professor. There's plenty of substance to the complaint. Or don't you want Mrs. R dragged into more negative PR? Let's go! I will have an attorney nail you on something specific.

>>I am convinced that Ms. M.C. took a simple, innocent, harmless remark I made and misunderstood it.
It's more about you going around to third parties and disparaging me, loser. Next time, try bringing real scientific proof to class instead of spouting off pseudoscience.

>>She repeats her charge about my supposedly calling her suicidal or depressive approximately a dozen times in her postings.
I said you created negative innuendo. Can you not read English?

>>Ms. M.C.'s second complaint is that 'he repeatedly put graded tests out on a table for all to see.' This statement is an exaggeration and accuses me of doing something harmful when I did not.
No, the "harm" was going around to third parties accusing me of being in denial of your unprovable Freudian baloney.

Students. Google Martin Seligman, the father of Positive Psychology and see what HE says about these Freudians. In one book, he refers to Freudian methods as "preposterous."

>>I did put the 'P's' (for pass) on the top of the page, and they could be seen. But everyone got a P on every quiz. If I had failed someone on a quiz, I would have returned that quiz privately to that student. Therefore there is nothing harmful that anyone could see; only that others received a 'P' for that quiz.
That's not what FERPA allows, dippy! FERPA explicitly disallows even that.

What a dork. He doesn't even "get" it. READ the law already!!

>>Her third complaint is that I was overheard making some disparaging comments" about her to another student, whose initials are A.R. Ms. A.R. and I discussed this complaint after we learned about it, and we both agreed that this never happened.
Of course. The old let's-just-keep-hush-hush tactic.

You are sooooo lucky this isn't going to court, because there, what you're not admitting would have to come out, under oath.

What a creep.

>>An official of the school, after seeing the postings, talked with me about the matter. After hearing what I had to say, arranging for another official to talk with Ms. M.C., and reading the postings carefully, he concluded that I had done absolutely nothing wrong.
No, dean Timothy Gordon told me that he was just unhappy that I named names. He agreed that there was an ethical issue, but that the APA might consider it borderline or on the edge, and so he asked me not to file an APA ethics complaint.

I wonder, though, if there is any type of conspiracy, a "political psychology" campaign, if you will, going on now. I am openly more conservative on a liberal campus, and there is ample proof of continued harassment of the politically incorrect....

http://www.thefire.org

Gotta wonder.

>>I have little hope that Ms. M.C. will apologize for her unfair attack or will update her report with a statement that she realized she had a misunderstanding.
I want a full refund. I never got one. Therefore, I restate my opinion that this creep is a creep.

Seriously. Go Google what the more scientific professors say about Freudian psychoanalysis. I am NOT the only one who thinks half this nonsense in non-empirical bunk.

Thank you. That's it for the issue.

Grades on the back of papers? Seems a little obsessive. I have a question for James...is it studying psychology or was Ms. M.C. always so sensitive?

This complaint against me is unfounded, incorrect, malicious, and outrageous. I hoped to let it go, because I believed that anyone who read through it would see that there is no substance to the complaint. However, I have learned that people find this posting on the Internet and do not read it carefully. Instead they see me charged with horrible, unethical behavior and notice that there is an initial posting with 16 further postings, and they assume there must be something to it. One might think 17 people have spoken out against me, but in fact all 17 postings are from the same person, who repeated essentially the same complaints over and over during a period of about three weeks last spring. Please read my reply. I am confident that if you do you will agree that the attack is groundless.

I will refer to the Misunderstanding Complainer as Ms. M.C. (not her real initials). Ms. M.C. has three main complaints.

First, she describes the following from a course I taught on psychological biography. In class she said she chose to write about Edgar Allen Poe because she liked spooky stories, not because she was like Poe. She goes on, "The student (referring to herself) said to Mr. Anderson and the entire class that 'I'm not suicidal or anything,' to which Mr. Anderson immediately objected." She doesn't claim I said anything beyond that.

Here is what happened. She said that she was not like Poe, that she isn't suicidal or anything, and that she chose to write about Poe entirely because she likes spooky stories and he writes spooky stories. I said that she shouldn't be so quick to conclude that, meaning she shouldn't be so quick to conclude that she chose to write about Poe entirely because he writes spooky stories. I had no intention of implying I believed she was suicidal, nor did I have any reason to think she was. I do not think that any reasonable person would understand my comment as implying that she was suicidal. After reading Ms. M.C.'s posting, I checked out my understanding with four other students who took the course, and all of them said they did not have the impression I had implied that she was suicidal or depressed.

I have to take a moment to explain why I said what I did. My point was that a student who writes a biographical essay about a person should not be quick to dismiss the possibility that she is interested in that person because there is some similarity between the two of them. A key theme of this course was that there is often a connection between biographers and the people they write about. Many examples came up in the course, such as the biographer, Jean Strouse, who wrote about Alice James, the sister of William and Henry James, discussing how she felt similar to Alice in many respects. I encourage the students to think about what comes out in themselves as they work on a biographical subject. I never require them to talk or write about this theme, but I let them know they may do so if they wish. Most of the students found it helpful and instructive to think about this theme. In other words, I wanted to make the point that I hoped the students would be open to thinking about their connection with their subjects.

I am convinced that Ms. M.C. took a simple, innocent, harmless remark I made and misunderstood it. She repeats her charge about my supposedly calling her suicidal or depressive approximately a dozen times in her postings. I wish she had told me during the course of her impression that she imagined I had implied she was suicidal. I would have been glad to tell the students that I did not see her as suicidal and to explain to the students why I recommended that Ms. M.C. and everyone else in the course would think of their connection with the people about whom they were writing biographical essays.

Ms. M.C.'s second complaint is that "he repeatedly put graded tests out on a table for all to see." This statement is an exaggeration and accuses me of doing something harmful when I did not. We had easy quizzes in class, something I do to encourage the students to do the reading. If someone does the reading, that student will pass the quiz. When I returned the quizzes, I put them on the table alphabetically for the students to pick up. I did put the "P's" (for pass) on the top of the page, and they could be seen. But everyone got a P on every quiz. If I had failed someone on a quiz, I would have returned that quiz privately to that student. Therefore there is nothing harmful that anyone could see; only that others received a "P" for that quiz.

During the course Ms. M.C. complained to a school official about my returning tests in such a way that the grades could be seen, and the official passed on the complaint to me. I did not see any harm in what I had done, but I immediately started putting the P on the back instead of the front of the quizzes.

Her third complaint is that I was overheard making some disparaging comments about her to another student, whose initials are A.R. Ms. A.R. and I discussed this complaint after we learned about it, and we both agreed that this never happened. Instead, we made some innocent references to Ms. M.C., such as what topic she was doing her paper on or whether the two of them had been in previous courses together. The reason I am sure I did not say anything negative about Ms. A.R. is that I did not have any negative feelings about her. Furthermore, I would not speak in a disparaging manner about one student to another. As for my saying something harmless about Mr. M.C., certainly no one has ever claimed that there is a total ban on a teacher and student saying something about another student. There must be very few teachers who, while talking to one student, have never made a reference to another student. I am certain Ms. M.C. misunderstood and exaggerated whatever she may have heard Ms. A.R. and me say to each other.

The nastiness of Ms. M.C.'s postings is offensive to me. She uses such awful and uncalled-for language in referring to me: jerk, arrogant, crank, creep. I have dedicated my life to helping my patients and my students. I have consistently received positive evaluations from students over the course of many years. And now, if someone Googles me, that person is likely to find this unfair attack on me that claims that I am an unethical, abusive person.

Ms. M.C. claims, incorrectly, that I caused harm. Instead, she has caused harm. In particular, three of my patients, over the past months, came across her postings. All came in upset because of the initial impression that I was under public attack, and all of them had the suspicion that I must have done something wrong if there were all these postings attacking me (they did not realize at first that all the postings were the product of Ms. M.C.). All three of the patients, when I explained what had happened and when they looked more carefully at the postings, agreed with me that the attacks were completely wrong. To my surprise, all three of them spontaneously offered to write a rebuttal for me, but I said I did not see that as necessary. Ms. M.C. harmed these three people by alarming them, by threatening their therapeutic relationship with me, and by causing them to waste some of their valuable therapy time talking about the attack on me.

An official of the school, after seeing the postings, talked with me about the matter. After hearing what I had to say, arranging for another official to talk with Ms. M.C., and reading the postings carefully, he concluded that I had done absolutely nothing wrong.

I have little hope that Ms. M.C. will apologize for her unfair attack or will update her report with a statement that she realized she had a misunderstanding. But I wish that readers will consider my explanation carefully. And I am confident that if they do, they will agree that I am entirely blameless.

James A, Chicago, IL

Just an update that it appears that what was construed as "gossip" on the part of Mrs. R was misunderstood.

Apparently, this individual just happened to be politely listening to what the other party was saying, not wanting to rock the boat.

Well, thank goodness. I thought my name was being negatively disparaged by someone with many many student contacts, but someone internally, who knows this individual better (has known the person longer) strongly feels that it was completely misunderstood that she had any active part in the affair aside from just being in the wrong place at the wrong time while trying to politely listen to the other party.

Will see if report can be edited to completely remove her name, as now, I do not feel that she was engaged in voluntary "gossip," but was instead just having to listen to someone else, and I happened to overhear a portion of the conversation.

Good news: Internal student affairs does listen to complaints (and no, they didn't make me say this, because after complaining about FERPA, I know they can't touch me and haul me into some campus kangaroo court...that might be construed as "retaliation," you see).

Seriously. I'll give the lady the benefit of the doubt and assume perhaps she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time when my name just happened to be used by the other party. It happens.

OK. I guess the chronic updates thing is pointless, because it really does appear that they've got one of those online reputation management firms working on this (that's why I've broken down my constant consumer-friendly updates on different days, because the more stuff you add, the more that the various keywords get up there at the top of the Google search listings).

But in case anyone who has perhaps had negative experiences with Mr. Anderson before has found the info while it was ranking high in the search-hits listings and has been following along, this one's for you...

It's about how you, too, can manage your online reputation should you perhaps start up your own business in the near future, and some out-of-line creep tries to slander or defame you (I'm so not kidding that I think there's something possibly very sleazy going on with this guy trying to troll for possible new clients in his classes, then getting all negative when it's not going as he wants it to go...as in, people run for their lives from the guy, sensing something is seriously wrong, like if he's inferring you might be sucidial in front of everyone!!).

Here's a piece from the Wall Street Journal on how you can fight back (I hope Ed lets this post, because I still believe this site is full of honest complaints and that even if I post this online piece, people will still continue to flock to RipoffReport to post complaints knowing the reports will not be totally removed even if the rankings change as a result of these companies managing online reputations).

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118169502070033315-3PzMHMIbLz_n4N_IOACv2SSbVlQ_20070712.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

There are many many wonderful students who attend my school, and so many of them get along smashingly, even people on opposite sides of the political spectrum. They may disagree on theories or politics, but they all know that at the end of the day, they all get a degree from a top-ranked university, and so they often just laugh off differences and go out for drinks together. It's a very positive and open environment (some of the professors can be a whole 'nother story, but fortunately, I have personally had more tolerant ones than non-tolerant ones).

Hopefully, when many of them start up their own little startups, or work in the professions, they will have recourse if someone like this crank Freudian jerk decides to post something in some online psych discussion forum about...well...just whatever. I mean, he didn't outright name his patients while telling us all about his real-life stories in class, but he did violate FERPA, the federal student privacy law, multiple times, he did infer that I might be a depressed suicidal even though I ran a verbal disclaimer, and he also gives out a ton of other info about his clients in class even without naming names. At the very least, he appears to be rather lax in the privacy department, so God only knows what he does when you're not around to hear all of it (and I did overhear some outrageously defamatory-sounding stuff while he and Mrs. Rumbaugh, were not aware that I was nearby).

In my personal opinion, Mrs. Rumbaugh is a potential employer's biggest legal liability risk, because to openly gossip about people she barely knows in a way in which...I mean...you could totally lose your health insurance if someone thought you were seriously suicidal, right? They don't want to cover those people in case they attempt suicide, but it isn't successful, and so now there are medical expenses to pay out. And this silly woman is (get this) an ORGANIZATION BEHAVIOR major! Can you believe it? What a stupid woman. She's apparently learned nothing, in my personal opinion.

Anyways. I think there's no point in updating, as the keywords that end up in Google search are probably managed a bit by those companies.

On a bright note, it looks like someone probably had to make an effort to spend some money, so I'm finding that just absolutely amusing.

I hope the bill ran close to the $1250 that I (and possibly even past students) were billed in tuition to cover a course taught by such an unprofessional idiot instructor.

They have doctorates from top-tier universities, and yet they act like idiots, some of these radicals. Sad.

On a bright note, a good chunk of Northwestern is fantastic, despite this cathartic complaint-fest going up here at RipoffReport. It's mostly in the humanities and social sciences departments where you get some of these cranks. Hard sciences are more empirical, and everyone knows that our B-school, Kellogg, is internationally recognized.

Don't let these complaints deter anyone from applying to Northwestern, but at the same time, don't let some crank professor tarnish your reputation, either, if you end up with one of those types once in a while.

Can't be sure if that's why these two aren't coming up high in Google search at the top of the page anymore (and I'm not surprised that a couple of malicious gossips who engage in what's clearly out-of-line behavior might do something like that, to scramble to get something positive high in the search rankings), but suffice it to say that while it may only be temporary, it is highly possible that along with all of that money they have as a result of being tied in with BIG HEALTHCARE business, the services of a search engine reputation management type company might have been employed.

Gee. What were they afraid of? That people might actually believe the allegations? (note: one student was running an audiotape recorder instead of taking notes by hand...can you imagine the damage if that tape were to be obtained by subpoena?).

At least something got out to the internet to warn others while they were popping up high in the search rankings, and if they actually had to pay $$$ to a search engine reputation management company, then I'm pleased as punch (because I, personally, had to pay $1250 bucks for this class in which MY reputation was attacked right there in a group setting). If they had to shell out some serious money to manage the rankings that come up, then good.

I don't think RipoffReports get removed, despite names not ranking up top if someone does employ the services of a search engine rankings optimization entity, so hey...I always reserve the right to warn others, verbally, about the RipoffReport.

By the way, there are some great books out on the market about the radical and pseudoscientific ideas that manage to pass as so-called academic discourse if anyone's interested.

"Fashionable Nonsense" by Sokal and Bricmont is a good one, and for those who don't know about it, there was the infamous "Sokal Hoax" in which a humanities-related journal accepted and printed a bogus prank article that had not been properly peer-reviewed and determined to be hokey.

Here's the link...

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/

"Transgressing the Boundaries" is the actual paper that got published.

Side note: I wonder why Rumbaugh and Anderson are so chummy, by the way? Does anyone suppose that perhaps she's gone to him in the past for treatment of some type? I mean, I'm just wondering, not creating any type of...like...negative innuendo or anything. ; )

For proof of what Kinship Trust does, cut/paste this into browser window...

http://www.lntyee.com/aboutus/bios/bryan_dunn.htm

See? Kinship Trust manages the Searle family wealth, money made in part from selling such things as pharmaceuticals and...oh gosh gee, but look at what else I found about Searle...being involved in the sordid DALKON SHIELD SCANDAL...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEEDF1238F933A2575AC0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

My God, anything for $$$ and profits for these pharma companies.

Of course, the fact that someone (who engages in wildly speculative gossip) works for people who manage the wealth of a family associated with huge pharma profits doesn't mean that person is unethical, just that...you know...I mean here's someone who's chatty with this Mr. Anderson while he's making negative innuendo about a student in a psych class, and look who she works for! It's all profit-hungry, big healthcare and big pharma related people.

Well then. I guess adversity is your best friend sometimes, because in trying to figure out more about what might be going on with these gossipy and possibly slanderous people (as a legal term, that is, because personally, I feel that they are both 100% slanderous whether a court of law would deem them so or not), I dug up some very useful consumer info related to healthcare, mental health and pharma FRAUD.

Maybe, just maybe, it'll teach consumers to be a tad more skeptical about who they associate with.

If anyone signs up for a Northwestern psych class and it isn't about the subject matter in the texts or readings alone, but you find that out-of-line creepy people are trying to turn the psychoanalysis outwards towards you, the student, there's something very very wrong going on. That's just not ethically mainstream behavior.

Complain. Drop the class. Try to get your money refunded, if possible, and most of all, try hard not to get enrolled in some creep's class in the first place if at all possible.

I really need to stop with the constant updates. Honestly, I think I'm quite pleased, now, with all of the consumer info I've got up here.

P.S. Ed, you're a hero! Keep up the site. You just know so many of these complaints are valid, no matter what some people may say. Complainers, put as much descriptive detail as you can about the incidents in your reports. That way, it gives other consumers leads with which to check things out themselves, just in case they're in doubt of some of the allegations.

I mean, what is Mr. Anderson going to do to spin himself out of my complaint? Argue that I'm just some suicidal, so pay no mind? Do suicidals care so much about their reputations with regards to getting grad school LOR's or starting up a business that they're furious with people who spread possibly defamatory innuendo? Of course not.

At least "Dr. Phil" can argue that he's not a real licensed clinical psychologist.

Bummer. Just as I was all excited about filing an ethics complaint with the APA, the attorneys reviewing everything to determine if it's worth it to pursue any type of Cease and Desist letter (someone on the Northwestern SCS Student Advisory Board apparently doesn't understand that even if some of these crackpot Freudian psych theories were true, it would--duh!--be a complete invasion of student privacy anyways) or even possible litigation, I'm being advised not to file. They don't want it where there's anything in his favor if the APA dismisses the complaint and not serious enough to be considered an ethics violation. Smart strategy! But still a bummer, as now I'm not sure the jerk will ever be put through some type of educational re-training. : (

Oh well. I did come up with more useful consumer information related to Northwestern Memorial Hospital, and I think it's sort of relevant to the main topic, as Northwestern Memorial is associated with Feinberg, where Mr. Anderson used to teach. Check out the news reports of huge profits at this (cough) not-for-profit hospital...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120726201815287955.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Very interesting.

There's also more at this website (just type "Northwestern Memorial" or "Gary Mecklenberg" into the search window)...

http://www.wherethemoneygoes.com/

I have NO idea if there are any kickbacks for referrals going on over there, or what (and this is not meant to be construed as any type of outright allegation), but it's very very interesting to say the least.

Seriously. If honest people really thought people were suicical and wanted to help, they wouldn't be acting belligerently arrogant by engaging in malicious gossip about people. That's what makes me suspicious of the whole affair, that it just might be part of a larger healthcare scandal of some type where every time someone picks some colorful personality to research, someone starts speculating that gee, maybe if the student wanted to report on Hamlet, they are bipolar psychotics, or whatever. I mean really. This is just absurd theory, this crank Freudian thing where they infer that every little thing you take interest in researching must have some deep personal significance. It sounds more like a way to jump on people and try to convince them to go running off to the Northwestern docs (which means money, right?) because now they're terrified that they're repressing suicidal thoughts deep beneath the level of consciousness. Oh, and I also found out that the gossipy Student Advisory Board president who was privvy to Mr. Anderson's wild speculation about my reason for selecting Poe to research works for some company that manages the Searle family wealth. Yep. Uh huh. Searle makes...you guessed it...drugs!

See why this all looks so suspicious? Good, caring and ethical people just DO NOT act like that. They don't invade the privacy of a private citizen they barely know, and certainly not in a group setting, which if the person really was suicidal would be extremely harmful to the person emotionally. These people just leave a really bad taste in my mouth because of the way they conducted themselves.

Maybe it's part of the whole profit-making thing over there for all I know.

By the way, keep an eye on the wherethemoneygoes site, as they don't just blog, but they also post links to newspaper stories around the nation by all of the major papers. This is a great source of info for consumers.

Wasn't sure they'd respond positively regarding the explanation of the classroom behavior of Mr. James William Anderson, PhD, who taught what I perceive to be a highly controversial course at Northwestern University's School of Continuing Studies during Winter quarter 2008, but since they did respond, I must add yet another update, here: I'm filing an ethics complaint to see if perhaps someone can put this jerk of a clinical psychologist through re-training to learn how to properly handle a classroom setting (hint: it's NOT his private psych office).

Due to the fact that the APA has actually invited the irresponsible and infamous "Dr. Phil" (the tv psychologist whose method of dealing with people is to openly berate them in a very public setting...but at least those people signed waivers that allowed him to do so!) to speak at a past APA convention, I wasn't sure if they'd screen out my complaint or not, but they did say they'd send out a complaint packet and that I was welcome to file (which I fully intend to do).

This should be very interesting, especially because the Northwestern SCS Student Advisory Board president, Mrs. Arlene Rumbaugh, was privvy to some of the gossip that went on with Mr. Anderson, so it's going to be kind of hard for the guy to argue that he didn't potentially cause any "harm" by insinuating that perhaps I really was a depressed suicidal (just because of who I picked for my topic).

Being that the SAB president is a psychology major, I'm almost certain that the APA ethics rules apply to her, too, so if called upon to explain what went on by the APA, I think she's required to comply with the investigation.

The main issue is that, aside from the absolutely outrageous innuendo just based on who people pick for a lousy research paper topic, if (Heaven forbid) there's ever someone truly that depressed that they're thinking about self-harm, who in their right mind (who studies and/or works in the field of psychology) thinks it would EVER be professional, ethical and appropriate to create that assumption publicly, in front of a classroom full of strangers?!

To be honest, Northwestern's School of Continuing Studies does not have the same entrance requirements as the "day" school (where the traditional students who took the SAT test attend classes), so unfortunately, while SCS is chock full of highly competent students who really do belong at Northwestern, from time to time, you know...you get an irresponsible psych major, or two, who thinks that just because they are majoring in psychology, they get to play let's-pretend-to-diagnose-people-we-barely-know-even-though-we're-not-medical-doctors (they're not even in grad school!).

So yes, a formal complaint is in the works. Thank God. Maybe some type of discipline or ethics training will be required at some point (knock on wood).

And by the way, if anyone happens upon the RipoffReports and gets all huffed and puffed up about this being posted on the internet, don't even think about trying to sue to get it taken down. If someone tries to sue me, personally, rest assured that I've worded everything truthfully and in a way in which I have not openly accused anyone of outright criminal behavior (the term "unethical" has a broad reach). And anyways, I will simply file a countersuit, as the people mentioned appear to be way out of line themselves to be engaging in damaging and untrue negative innuendo that has the potential to cause grave harm to the reputation of a private citizen who has never ever been suicidal (and could get a medical doctor's opinion, easily, to prove that I'm not one now).

Hopefully, these elite universities will also be cautious not to allow too many non-traditional psych majors into their top-ranked clinical psychology programs. While some students clearly are able to compete at an advanced level in any school at Northwestern, from the traditional "day" school to the non-trad program, it's clear there are some questionable people who manage to slip into these non-trad undergraduate programs, and who can manage to memorize some stuff for tests or cite other scholars for research papers, but yet their judgment is highly highly questionable.

For the love of God, you NEVER publicly embarrass someone who might really be that fragile that you think they might be a depressed suicidal. It's just highly potentially harmful behavior. I know that, and I'm not even a psych major.

P.S. Thank you, Ed Magedson, for putting up this site. I'm serious. I was so outraged, before, but after having the opportunity to warn other consumers (because if an instructor at Northwestern SCS gets any negative comments, they are simply allowed to hide that portion of the end-of-the-quarter-evaluations), I've been incredibly happier despite the fact that I've had to have meetings with lawyers to protect my name from possibly defamatory behavior. Great site. Venting is just oh-so-healthy, as it feels great to be able to warn others. If people think something's not true, they can question others and ask, "Is it true that so-and-so objected to someone in front of the entire class when they assured everyone they were 'not suicidal'?" And if you did it, good luck trying to escape the bona fide truth.

More info! Thought I'd get up to about 10 good warning updates full of useful consumer information, and this looks to be about #10, here.

OK. I attended a little Northwestern bash earlier this evening and got some rather interesting info related to Mr. Anderson! It seems that he sometimes keeps a student after class to ask what brought the student to a particular area of research (nothing wrong with that, just seems friendly, right?), but then he slips this question in all of a sudden..."Do you work?"

I'll just bet money he's trolling for info to see if there's an insurance reimbursement eligible potential new patient in his classes! Oh, I'll just bet that's his little modus operandi (I think there are APA ethics rules against open solicitation, but I might be wrong. In any event, you cannot solicit while teaching on contract at Northwestern SCS, of that I'm certain, as the instructors are supposed to teach and not plug a personal business beyond mentioning what they do for a living...you know, so it doesn't seem like a tacky sales promo instead of a serious Northwestern class).

OK. So, the guy seems to have this little roundabout weasel thing worked out in that he probes for information about finances and insurance. Interesting!

Which brings me to my warning to consumers even if they are just students taking a psychology course.

Read about the fraud here...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7DC153FF932A05754C0A964958260

And this one...

http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/industries/Service/Psychiatric-Hospitals.html

"Some hospitals allegedly sought to acquire new patients by paying police, student counselors, and probation officers for referrals."

Aha! You see? Student counselors, too, so these hospitals with mental health care (not just physical care) docs consider students as potential new business.

I'm sorry, but if you've NEVER met someone before in your entire life and you're objecting to them when they assert that they are "not suicidal," there is reason for alarm, although in no way, shape or form is this meant to be construed as an assertion of fact (legal disclaimer), just deep deep suspicion as to what possible motives might be behind such behavior (again, I must stress this went on with a student who the man has NEVER met before).

Yep. Use caution, folks. Lots of characters out there, some well-credentialed and well-educated, even.

As for this fellow, I sure hope the insurance companies he submits claims to are going over his claims with a fine-toothed comb. I'd be very interested to know if he's been scrutinized carefully, along those lines, in the past.

And with add-on #10, that just about wraps this warning up.

Consumers? BE SAFE!

The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation has now assigned a case # to a complaint that was submitted in which they were asked to investigate whether Mr. Anderson's conduct was ethical or violated any state regulations, even though it was classroom behavior.

By the way, he was also giving out all of this detailed information about his current patients in the classroom, too, although he stopped short of actually naming anyone. We got the gender, the actual diagnosis, what the person did for a living, that they were an artist who worked a day job and did some artsy thing on the side, that they'd gotten recognition for their art...you know...enough peripheral details where a truly nosey person could start to narrow down who it might be. And one patient had some frightening dream about some guy touching her in an elevator, and (I swear to God, the ENTIRE Northwestern SCS class heard this story and can vouch that it's 100% true) so he tells us all that he thinks this patient was sexually attracted to him! What a crank. She was probably having a nightmare that he'd hit on her, or something, because this nutty Dr. Phil goofball has been in the news about an "inappropriate" relationship with a former patient before he ended up getting disciplined (I think was in Texas, but not 100% sure on the exact state where he was disciplined).

Does that sound like genuine science? Someone comes in with a nightmare, so you interpret it in the most narcissistic manner possible and inform your students that you think one of your patients has the hots for you and it's coming out in her dreams? Good God.

I know this type of radical nonsense occurs all the time in academia (see some of the nutty cases where satirical speech was deemed "violent" by the crazy campus kangaroo courts for an example)...

http://www.thefire.org

....but I never once thought I'd ever run into some crank (who's fully licensed!) sitting around trying to make people think they're repressed suicidals just because of a lousy selection of a subject for a research paper.

Good thing I didn't pick Charles Manson, or someone really creepy. Sheesh.

This is just frighteningly ridiculous behavior.

Crossing fingers there's something technical they can get this guy on, before he psychologically abuses anyone else in his classroom in front of multiple witnesses. Knock on wood it never happens to anyone else ever again.

This latest repetitive add-on (I know, I'm just terrible with this, but I really want to be sure my story is told and no one gets harmed if they have dealings with this man) features a link to the American Psychiatric Association's code of ethics, which true medical doctors must follow.

Mr. Anderson is NOT a medical doctor. He took the GRE to get into a doctoral program, but he is definitely not an M.D., which is what true psychiatrists, the ones who can truly diagnose someone as suicidal, or not, hold as their educational credentials. Look carefully at the guidelines for the medical doctors, and you will clearly see just how out-of-line this type of behavior in Mr. Anderson's classroom was (even if he didn't outright state that "it is a fact that" someone was a depressed suicidal, just because they selected Edgar Allan Poe, or perhaps even "it is a fact that" someone was an alcoholic, because I think Poe drank, too, what he DID do was to object and to not allow the student to assert herself in assuring her entire class that she was not suicidal). Also, there was some much more serious malicious gossip that was overheard being spoken to a third-party, even aside from the group classrooom situation, and which was the primary reason that I decided to run all this by an attorney for possible action.

No truly ethical professional pulls this type of thing. No one.

Here's the link...

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13351.html

He doesn't have to follow these guidelines, obviously, because he's not a medical doctor, but an ethical clinical psychologist ought to know that the real doctors follow these guidelines for a very very good reason. I don't think it would hurt if even the mere psychologists read the ethics guidelines that the psychiatrists had to follow. This is all to prevent harm to people. If you cannot manage to do that, then you don't belong in the "helping professions" at all.

This latest repetitive add-on (I know, I'm just terrible with this, but I really want to be sure my story is told and no one gets harmed if they have dealings with this man) features a link to the American Psychiatric Association's code of ethics, which true medical doctors must follow.

Mr. Anderson is NOT a medical doctor. He took the GRE to get into a doctoral program, but he is definitely not an M.D., which is what true psychiatrists, the ones who can truly diagnose someone as suicidal, or not, hold as their educational credentials. Look carefully at the guidelines for the medical doctors, and you will clearly see just how out-of-line this type of behavior in Mr. Anderson's classroom was (even if he didn't outright state that "it is a fact that" someone was a depressed suicidal, just because they selected Edgar Allan Poe, or perhaps even "it is a fact that" someone was an alcoholic, because I think Poe drank, too, what he DID do was to object and to not allow the student to assert herself in assuring her entire class that she was not suicidal). Also, there was some much more serious malicious gossip that was overheard being spoken to a third-party, even aside from the group classrooom situation, and which was the primary reason that I decided to run all this by an attorney for possible action.

No truly ethical professional pulls this type of thing. No one.

Here's the link...

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13351.html

He doesn't have to follow these guidelines, obviously, because he's not a medical doctor, but an ethical clinical psychologist ought to know that the real doctors follow these guidelines for a very very good reason. I don't think it would hurt if even the mere psychologists read the ethics guidelines that the psychiatrists had to follow. This is all to prevent harm to people. If you cannot manage to do that, then you don't belong in the "helping professions" at all.

This latest repetitive add-on (I know, I'm just terrible with this, but I really want to be sure my story is told and no one gets harmed if they have dealings with this man) features a link to the American Psychiatric Association's code of ethics, which true medical doctors must follow.

Mr. Anderson is NOT a medical doctor. He took the GRE to get into a doctoral program, but he is definitely not an M.D., which is what true psychiatrists, the ones who can truly diagnose someone as suicidal, or not, hold as their educational credentials. Look carefully at the guidelines for the medical doctors, and you will clearly see just how out-of-line this type of behavior in Mr. Anderson's classroom was (even if he didn't outright state that "it is a fact that" someone was a depressed suicidal, just because they selected Edgar Allan Poe, or perhaps even "it is a fact that" someone was an alcoholic, because I think Poe drank, too, what he DID do was to object and to not allow the student to assert herself in assuring her entire class that she was not suicidal). Also, there was some much more serious malicious gossip that was overheard being spoken to a third-party, even aside from the group classrooom situation, and which was the primary reason that I decided to run all this by an attorney for possible action.

No truly ethical professional pulls this type of thing. No one.

Here's the link...

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13351.html

He doesn't have to follow these guidelines, obviously, because he's not a medical doctor, but an ethical clinical psychologist ought to know that the real doctors follow these guidelines for a very very good reason. I don't think it would hurt if even the mere psychologists read the ethics guidelines that the psychiatrists had to follow. This is all to prevent harm to people. If you cannot manage to do that, then you don't belong in the "helping professions" at all.

Update: Student evaluations from the Psychobiography course have posted online (the system is internal, in that only the Northwestern community can access the online system to read the student course/teacher evaluations).

This is what we were waiting for (myself and the attorneys, who haven't said that I can't discuss this, as we're not sure, yet, if there's a solid enough case, technically speaking, to proceed). Getting written comments from other students was going to be something potentially useful, but guess what happened? Rather mysteriously, the full evaluation for Mr. James William Anderson PhD is not posting to the system, and it is strongly suspected that he asked that only the numerical ratings show, but not the more detailed written comments. Gee, isn't that rather odd that all of a sudden, his full evaluations are not posting to the system so that students may possibly warn other students about things that have gone on in recent courses taught by this instructor? The numerical ratings are more general, more about if it was a worthwhile type of course, that kind of thing, so it's a lot easier to get a higher numerical rating, as the questions are very specifically related to certain technical aspects of the course, but not about other things that may have gone on (for that, you can post comments for other students to read, and this is the section that is mysteriously not showing up for that course).

So, here we have an instructor, who seemed to be arrogantly abusing his power as a perceived expert in the classroom in that he engaged in highly out-of-line (and possibly even unethical) behavior regarding one of his students, but he seems to be hiding behind the numerical, but not the more detailed, written comments section of the student/course evaluations. What a weasel.

I got a good grade for the course, but probably because he knew people had gone to the dean to complain about certain things, like violating the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act law, so he figured he'd better at least give us decent final grades, no doubt.

I know, I'm just being terribly long-winded with the constant updates, but really, it's very healthy to vent, and the more detailed information you can provide to other consumers, the better and the more believable it is. My primary concern is helping others to avoid potential harm, because now I see that out-of-line adjunct faculty who teach on a contractual basis over at Northwestern's School of Continuing Studies can apparently hide behind only the numerical ratings even though they've arrogantly used the classroom to behave in a psychologically abusive manner towards particular students.

Well, regardless if I end up with a solid enough defamation case (most of those settle out of court, anyways, unfortunately, because they're difficult to sufficiently prove on all necessary technical points), at the very least, there's RipoffReport. You see, I'm young and can get a legal name change, thus circumventing any potential slander when I start up my business after graduating from Northwestern. Mr. James William Anderson PhD, however, cannot run away and hide from his negative RipoffReport complaint, because he has a lifetime of kooky voodoo cult of Freudian psychoanalytic jargon-filled publications established under his name.

I hope that little game in the course was worth getting a perpetual RipoffReport complaint. Maybe now he'll think twice before slandering other students with his kooky discredited Freudian ideas.

Good news! Maybe by next year, when new contracts are done at Northwestern's SCS school (they are done a year in advance), someone else will be in charge of hiring faculty and re-signing instructors.

Not sure if this link will still be up for interested RipoffReport readers to see, but if it goes offline at some point, it's a link to a Chronicle of Higher Education online listing for a new SCS dean...

http://chronicle.com/jobs/id.php?id=0000555426-01&pg=r

This is the person who is primarily responsible for hiring or not re-hiring potentially troublesome faculty members (Mr. Anderson had come to class and announced that he had been re-hired to teach more classes, much to my absolute dismay).

Thank God. Perhaps this is a start towards real reform. There are also excellent faculty members over there, and most of the students just love the good ones, but if this type of outrageous behavior is allowed to persist (inferring someone might be so severely ill that they're suicidal in a group classroom setting, just because of the subject they selected for a research paper), the school's reputation will suffer greatly. The value of a degree from this school must remain solid. They can't get rid of Holocaust denier Arthur Butz or former Weather Underground member Bernardine Dohrn, because those two radicals are tenured, but they can certainly toss the psychologically abusive instructors who do not have tenure.

By the way, the student who was so ridiculously disparaged in the worst possible way (in front of the whole class) successfully quit a brief, almost three year smoking habit (going on a number of years since quit, now) and would be quite amused, indeed, to watch Mr. Anderson come up with any type of valid reason as to why he infers she's possibly suicidal just because of the Poe selection for a research paper. Especially since there's an MD (yes, an MD, and not merely some PhD) who can vouch for her health quite nicely, thank you very much.

In the meantime, perhaps someone should send Butz and Dohrn for...you know...I mean, maybe they're in need of some serious professional help. Know what I mean? ; )

Peace to all RipoffReport posters who have ever been wronged. May this site help you get your stories told.

Not sure about the validity of this website, but if everything related to the SIU case that's listed on the site is true, this is a very very interesting thing, this "political psychology" aspect of the field of psychology. The student who was publicly made out to look like some kind of depressed suicidal might (and one cannot be certain of the exact motive without being psychic, right?) also a target of a political psychology campaign as well. Just thought to add that as an alternative idea, just in case other students, or perhaps even faculty members who dissent from ideological orthodoxy on campuses, ever end up targets of an INTENTIONAL political psychology campaign.

Read the SIU piece...

http://www.psychologistethics.net/#copp

Oh, and for a good laugh (or perhaps a good cry, actually), look at who the American Psychological Association (APA) invited to speak at their convention in the past...

http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct06/drphil.html

I cannot believe this. Talk about a decline in cultural and educational standards in America. They seriously invited the ethically challenged tv psychologist (he's not licensed right now!) to speak at their convention??

I hope RipoffReport thinks about doing a special section of the site to showcase abuse in the fields of psychology and psychiatry. I don't think most people believe that the people in the "helping professions" might sometimes be ethically challenged slimeballs. Perhaps it's time that the national news media paid more attention to this type of thing.

Just an idea for RipoffReport. Think about prominently featuring cases of some of the "bad apple" clinical psychologists and psychiatrists who have been busted for False Claims (see link below for all of the pharma and hospital fraud at the Taxpayers Against Fraud website).

http://www.taf.org

Who, in an ethically right mind, sits in front of a group of students and attempts to infer that one of his students might be a depressed suicidal when he's never ever ever met the student before in his life, but all he knows is that the student has publicly dissented to some of his theories in views in the classroom? I mean, what licensed clinical psychologist doesn't know the very real emotional harm that could be done if he knew, as a clinical expert, that the person truly was suicidal? Of course he knew this students wasn't suicidal; that's why he decided it was perfectly OK to attempt to publicly embarrass her, right? What a slimebucket.

I don't know the real motivation. Maybe he was trying to troll for possible new patients at first by creating innuendo, but then later, when it was obvious the student kept dissenting regarding his pseudoscientific (read: non-falsifiable) theories, he decided to just behave like a complete jerk and keep up the negative innuendo, or something, perhaps as a form of political psychology?

Sorry about all of the repetitive posts, but I am clearly emotionally distraught over this whole incident, as I need to secure recommendations for graduate study later, and here's this jerk of a crank psychologist trashing my good name at my school. Maybe the lawyers (3 PM appointment looming near) will take that into consideration if there's an "emotional distress" angle, but I really do fear that negative innuendo isn't actionable under tort law. All the same, it's pro bono attorneys, so it's worth checking into for possible litigation.

Seriously, though. RipoffReport should do a special feature on these rotten apples in healthcare. There is BIG BIG $$$ in the area of healthcare, even though many institutions are so-called "non-profits." Still, "non-profit" doesn't mean they're not making money, so I think this would be a great place to showcase stories of investigative journalism related to healthcare and mental health fraud. The scope of the problem is just huge.

These updates probably seem repetitive, but once the attorneys get on this possible defamation case, no doubt I'll be told to keep quiet from that point on and not discuss this publicly (which probably means the internet, too), so this is my last bit of possibly useful info before Monday morning rolls around and I'm talking to the legal eagles. It's mostly to help warn others, just in case there's anything shady going on (I don't know, maybe people affiliated with Northwestern's teaching hospital are running around trying to convince people they might be repressed suicidals, or something, so they can scare them into running to their hospitals or docs, or something, as healthcare is big money...who knows?).

OK. Here's the juicy scoop. Mr. James William Anderson, PhD has apparently taught at Feinberg School of Medicine before. Now, Feinberg is linked to Northwestern Memorial Hospital, and guess what happened to the LAST CEO who ran Northwestern Memorial?

He was UNDER INVESTIGATION for possible anti-trust issues by the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut! Oh my God. What a scandal. Here are links to some news stories related to one Gary Mecklenburg (Mecklenberg?), the former CEO of Northwestern Memorial, who apparently retired, probably due to the scandal, no doubt.

From the NYT...

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13892

So, Gary was CEO of Northwestern Memorial and was also running this H.R.D.I. outfit.

OK, so what does this have to do with a licensed clinical psychologist who has taught at Feinberg and who also teaches at Northwestern's School of Continuing Studies in addition to working out of his Michigan Avenue office in Chicago?

I'm not real sure, to be honest, but if anyone's wondered if they can fully trust these "experts" as far as their professional opinions go, the moral of the story is to be a skeptic sometimes. There is a TON of healthcare fraud going on in America, and psychologists and psychiatrists have been busted for quite a bit of fraud, too, not just medical doctors.

I'm sure lots of people associated with Feinberg and Northwestern Memorial are on the up-and-up, but you never know who the bad apples are. If they are trying to infer that people might be suicidals in front of a group of students, you know...I really wonder. Does this guy hang out and play with golf with Mecklenberg at all? You gotta wonder.

Be careful with your health, follks. Beware the creeps, cranks, frauds and quacks.

Apologies for the multiple updates (need to remember to include everything the first time), but it is probably best that I put up info on where, specifically, to find the APA Ethics Code, as their website is just full of links all over the place.

Here it is...

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code1992.html

Here are some crucial aspects of that Ethics Code that were obviously overlooked by Mr. James William Anderson, PhD, especially when some of his disparaging comments about a student were overheard as he spoke to a psychology major, Mrs. Arlene Rumbaugh, who was present in the same Psychobiography class where this whole incident took place.

"Psychologists and students, whether or not they are APA members, should be aware that the Ethics Code may be applied to them by state psychology boards, courts, or other public bodies."

Classroom behavior falls under the Ethics Code, too, as is evidenced by this clause...

"This Ethics Code applies only to psychologists' work-related activities, that is, activities that are part of the psychologists' scientific and professional functions or that are psychological in nature. It includes the clinical or counseling practice of psychology, research, teaching, supervision of trainees, development of assessment instruments, conducting assessments, educational counseling, organizational consulting, social intervention, administration, and other activities as well. These work-related activities can be distinguished from the purely private conduct of a psychologist, which ordinarily is not within the purview of the Ethics Code."

And this ought to be read very carefully...

"Whether or not a psychologist has violated the Ethics Code does not by itself determine whether he or she is legally liable in a court action, whether a contract is enforceable, or whether other legal consequences occur. These results are based on legal rather than ethical rules. However, compliance with or violation of the Ethics Code may be admissible as evidence in some legal proceedings, depending on the circumstances."

And then of course there is the avoidance-of-harm imperative...

"1.14 Avoiding Harm.

Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their patients or clients, research participants, students, and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable."

Students, not just patients, count under the avoidance of harm imperative.

In no section of the APA Ethics Code do I see anything that excuses Mr. James William Anderson from maliciously gossiping about a student who does not agree with his crank Freudian worldview, and to engage in this gossip with the Student Advisory Board President at the School of Continuing Studies.

Seriously. This man cannot even negatively disparage his dissenting students privately, that's how ridiculous he is.

So, to all students, either at Northwestern or in any other institution of higher education, who ever attempts to take a psychology class, do familiarize yourselves with the APA Ethics Code. You may need it to refer to if you need to secure an attorney to fight possible slander and defamation.

This should be the last update relating to this issue, as the pro bono attorneys who have taken in the case will most likely recommend it not be discussed (isn't that what usually happens?), but I forgot to indicate that if anyone has a negative experience with an APA (American Psychological Association) member, and this can be in a classroom setting, as many students take popular psychology courses in the universities (whose psychology departments are accredited by the APA), you can also file a complaint with the APA Ethics Office. The APA has a website online, and you can find their Ethics Code as well as information on how to file a complaint.

The reason what happened is so troubling is because student reputations are at stake, especially after the recent Virginia Tech and NIU suicide cases. A truly ethical licensed clinicial psychologist just DOES NOT ever infer, even through negative innuendo (and certainly not in a group setting) that one of his students might possibly be suicidal, because in some of these cases, those types of people can be very dangerous, although it's mostly males who are statistically more likely to be violent and to harm others.

All the same, even negative innuendo is highly highly serious, and no one should allow anyone to do that to them and get away with it. To infer this might be the case just because someone selected Edgar Allan Poe to research is beyond idiotic, but that's how Freudian theory works...it's kooky. It's probably what drives all of those goofs to fear that if their kids hear Ozzy Osbourne singing about suicide, the kids are going to go out and do it, or something. It's just horribly bad science, and this case further demonstrates how very harmful this crackpot theory can be.

And while it may very well be that the instructor is one of those hardcore Freudian "True Believers" and really thinks this crank pseudoscience is solid, rather than the reality, which is that it's highly controversial, that doesn't excuse the behavior, especially if this is ever done to a male student, and then the whole class freaks out and gets scared of the guy, or something (because for better or for worse, many people do trust authority figures, such as professors, even though the rest of us know that schools like Northwestern have a crank Holocaust denier on the tenured faculty, as well as Bernardine Dohrn, a former Weather Underground member who is married to the infamous Bill Ayers, another former Weather Underground member).

Please pursue an APA complaint if this ever happens to you, especially at Northwestern. They have also been in the news, recently, over the Medill "Quotegate" scandal, and one of their students was just absolutely trashed by the Medill Chief Marketing Officer over a faculty listserv. Google "Medill Quotegate Tom Hayden" if you want proof of what happened. Some of these professors are honestly just bumbling radical cranks, but with others, they are openly and intentionally hostile to any student who refuses to go along with some of their crackpot theories.

Just a quick note that upon speaking with people earlier this evening, who work with various student advocacy groups which publicize outrageous behavior in institutions of higher education, there are some pro bono attorneys for students to contact if needed to review facts for possible litigation.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is apparently one such organization where you can submit a case online at their website, and once they determine if there's anything they can do for you, you will be contacted by someone on their team. Someone is currently working with them to see if they can get a letter sent out to Northwestern to pressure the dean of the School of Continuing Studies to send out an email to every student who took that course last quarter and which states that some of the content was "controversial."

Finally, if this instructor, or any friends of his who naively believe in this crank Freudian psychoanalytic nonsense, try to post rebuttals up here, rest assured that there was an entire classroom full of witnesses who, if questioned by an attorney, would be able to assert that yes, he verbally OBJECTED and wouldn't allow the student to assert herself and speak for herself when she claimed she was certainly "not suicidal" just because she initially selected Edgar Allan Poe as a subject. There is just no way it can be rebutted when the whole class witnessed the behavior. Just a note in case someone tries to spin it in any other way aside from the bona fide truth. If anyone does, it's probably a bogus post from people who weren't actually there.

Students, don't allow some of these Shock Profs to psychologically intimidate, harass, bully or defame you when YOU are the one being charged tuition for being there. Fight back.

Just a quick note that upon speaking with people earlier this evening, who work with various student advocacy groups which publicize outrageous behavior in institutions of higher education, there are some pro bono attorneys for students to contact if needed to review facts for possible litigation.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is apparently one such organization where you can submit a case online at their website, and once they determine if there's anything they can do for you, you will be contacted by someone on their team. Someone is currently working with them to see if they can get a letter sent out to Northwestern to pressure the dean of the School of Continuing Studies to send out an email to every student who took that course last quarter and which states that some of the content was "controversial."

Finally, if this instructor, or any friends of his who naively believe in this crank Freudian psychoanalytic nonsense, try to post rebuttals up here, rest assured that there was an entire classroom full of witnesses who, if questioned by an attorney, would be able to assert that yes, he verbally OBJECTED and wouldn't allow the student to assert herself and speak for herself when she claimed she was certainly "not suicidal" just because she initially selected Edgar Allan Poe as a subject. There is just no way it can be rebutted when the whole class witnessed the behavior. Just a note in case someone tries to spin it in any other way aside from the bona fide truth. If anyone does, it's probably a bogus post from people who weren't actually there.

Students, don't allow some of these Shock Profs to psychologically intimidate, harass, bully or defame you when YOU are the one being charged tuition for being there. Fight back.

Just a quick note that upon speaking with people earlier this evening, who work with various student advocacy groups which publicize outrageous behavior in institutions of higher education, there are some pro bono attorneys for students to contact if needed to review facts for possible litigation.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is apparently one such organization where you can submit a case online at their website, and once they determine if there's anything they can do for you, you will be contacted by someone on their team. Someone is currently working with them to see if they can get a letter sent out to Northwestern to pressure the dean of the School of Continuing Studies to send out an email to every student who took that course last quarter and which states that some of the content was "controversial."

Finally, if this instructor, or any friends of his who naively believe in this crank Freudian psychoanalytic nonsense, try to post rebuttals up here, rest assured that there was an entire classroom full of witnesses who, if questioned by an attorney, would be able to assert that yes, he verbally OBJECTED and wouldn't allow the student to assert herself and speak for herself when she claimed she was certainly "not suicidal" just because she initially selected Edgar Allan Poe as a subject. There is just no way it can be rebutted when the whole class witnessed the behavior. Just a note in case someone tries to spin it in any other way aside from the bona fide truth. If anyone does, it's probably a bogus post from people who weren't actually there.

Students, don't allow some of these Shock Profs to psychologically intimidate, harass, bully or defame you when YOU are the one being charged tuition for being there. Fight back.