Rutgers University: The University of Al Capone?

As glaring as the headline may seem, Rutgers University - The State University of New Jersey - is a leading discrimination institution in America. It often pursues discriminatory policies to defraud federal money via student loans.

Rutgers University actively exploits minority groups. And it does so for financial profit.

Discrimination, whether racial, age, gender or disability, is a pure act of financial greed. Americans were raised to discriminate against Blacks, not because anything was innately inferior about Blacks, but because isolating the Black community was financially lucrative. No one disputes - not even Thomas Jefferson - that slavery was a sure-fire ‘Get Rich Quick’ scheme that would make modern purveyors of such gambits (the tape selling seminar industries of Tony Robbins and Dave Del Dotto) blush. For minimal effort, one reaped enormous cash flow.

Rutgers University is a modern financial legacy of America’s slave trade. As noted in the “Lying is the Same as Telling the Truth” article, New Jersey did oppose the Thirteenth Amendment ending slavery. Only when slavery’s demise was a foregone reality did New Jersey belatedly ‘join the gang’ and race to approve the amendment.

The wait-and-see approach was no financial accident.

It should not be overlooked that New Jersey probably would have never approved the Thirteenth Amendment unless it was ratified by others first - the ‘wait-and-see’ business mentality is designed to maximize all avenues of financial exploitation. The tactic operates under the rationale of 'not foreclosing means of income unnecessarily' - regardless of whether those means are immoral, amoral, or in opposition to fundamental elements of justice and fairness. If it is not illegal, even arguably, then do it - especially if it involves money.

While New Jersey banned slavery, it has never abandoned the basic business models that inspired, supported, and ultimately prolonged slavery into the mammoth culture that it became. What underpinned slavery, philosophically from a business point of view, is still what underpins New Jersey’s business culture to this very day.

It is helpful to remember, and there are many less than sincere incentives desiring that it be forgotten, that slavery was not a primarily race-based institution for most of its existence in the United States. Whites were just as subject to enslavement as Blacks. One can parse between indentured servitude and slavery but, pragmatically, they were identical business practices as time bore out. Only between the end of the Revolution and the Civil War did slavery take on a profound racial orientation.

While slavery, legally, may be gone, all the ‘shadow’ aspects of slavery - its causes, its financial theories and philosophies, remain intact and very much a part of New Jersey law.

For instance, few dispute that New Jersey slants its laws to favor the rich and the corporate. The favoritism plays out in interesting ways. Employers can falsify weekly salaries to hurt employees, true or false? In New Jersey, it is quite true. New Jersey allows employers to falsify salary records if you work less than one full week - for any reason - during the course of your employment. Employers can claim that a ‘portion of a week’ is a full week as long as the salary paid is slightly more than $100. By doing so, New Jersey allows accounting sleight of hand to reduce Unemployment benefit obligations by employers. Your salary was actually $750, your employer will report - at least for that week - it was much less.

It gets worse should you be injured during your employment years. New Jersey allows employers to threaten you with employment termination if you fail to apply for Social Security Disabiity benefits. Employers are also allowed to threaten to fire you if you fail to appeal any denial of disability benefits by Social Security. Nice guys. But sadly, it gets even more Draconian. They can fire you, not just threaten you, in New Jersey if you fail to play the Social Security application game. The game is codified under New Jersey’s insurance indemnification laws. A careful review of your employer's healthcare contract - particularly the fine print legalese - will often reveal the game.

Should you be injured longer than one year, New Jersey allows you to be fired outright - including termination of all your health insurance benefits. You can continue the benefits but only under conditions that New Jersey ensures as unrealistic and financially silly.

The ‘exploitation’ business philosophy of New Jersey permeates its higher learning institutions as well.

If you attend Rutgers University, chances are high that New Jersey will play the same economic exploitation games that gave rise to slavery, the unemployment insurance laws and the injured employee laws.

Why? Because it is financially lucrative in a guaranteed way. The federal government pays most tuitions through student loans. Once the cash is safely in hand, a university is free to do whatever it desires as long as it does not get caught.

For every disabled student admitted to Rutgers, many dependent on federal student loans to pay tuition and living expenses, Rutgers provides virtually no disability-employment services - it certainly provides far less in services than to the non-disabled, particularly in career placement. (Rutgers does sponsor disability related programs with Merck and IBM but the programs are largely concealed and quite limited in scope. In fact, Rutgers has refused to divulge any statistics concerning those employment placement efforts for the disabled.)

In one example, Rutgers received nearly $50,000 from the federal government for a student attending the Rutgers University campus in Camden. What did it give the student in return?

Well, the student was allowed to attend classes and take examinations but that’s about it. A professor by the name of Gary Sambol, a former deputy Attorney General for New Jersey, complained that the students handwriting was so poor that “I want you to go see the Dean of Students, you are never going to pass a course in law school.” The incident happened less than three weeks into the first year of law classes.

The Dean of Students, Elaine G. Dushoff, response was classic and historically apt in light of New Jersey’s past. The Dean denied any request by the student to type examinations, denied a request to submit medical records, and denied any ability to appeal her decision. A rationale was provided, it is noteworthy. “We have to separate the students for our employers somehow.” As she requested the newly enrolled student to leave her office, Dean Dushoff made a more pragmatic application of the business philosophy just espoused. “If I ever catch you typing any examinations, I will personally see to it that you fail every one that you type.”

While the matter clearly falls into the ‘he said/she said’ category, institutional psychiatrists and psychologists would hardly be surprised by Ms. Dushoff’s conduct - particularly those studying discrimination behaviors.

What is fascinating about Ms. Dushoff’s conduct (she was subsequently allowed to resign her position) was her willingness to hit the nail on the head: the discriminatory behavior was entirely economically based. Those perceived as ‘disabled’ are to be identified and isolated, most particularly highlighted, so that businesses can act appropriately - notably not hire them due to the increased health care costs which are invariably associated with the previously injured.

Sadly, Dean Dushoff’s behavior was just the beginning. Like a starter pistol at a track meet, the denial of the examination accommodation was like a shot signaling the beginning of three years of legal charades that culminated in a dramatic, eloquent and fascinating way.

Over the next three years, the student was targeted by the administrative staff. Non-disabled students were given preferential treatment in course enrollments even though, by university policies concerning tenure, the disabled student should have been afforded seating priority - not due to disability but simply because of being an upperclassman.

In an infamous cheating scandal at the Rutgers School of Law during the Spring of 1995, students were allowed to cheat in preparation for Professor Sherry Colb’s Evidence class examination. Students were afforded extra preparation time even though it violated the Rutgers University Honor Code and Student Handbook guidelines. Needless to say, a Social Security Disability recipient was excluded from the extra preparation time. Every student allowed to alter their examination schedule was not disabled. One student was barred from altering their schedule. That student was the Social Security Disability recipient.

Notably, it was the same dean, Elaine G. Dushoff, who supervised the events. The dean went on to bar the same Social Security Disablity recipient from taking a related examination, then changed her mind with less than one hour in the examination period, and demanded that the Social Security Disability recipient take the test or fail. The student refused. A failing grade was assigned to the Social Security Disability recipient. It was subsequently erased and the Social Security Disability recipient was allowed to take the examination properly and fairly.

The incident may have contributed to the resignation of the Dean of Students during the following academic year.

But the matter was hardly over. When the Social Security Disability recipient applied to the New Jersey Bar, Rutgers University did not forget that the student had exposed its de facto policies of discrimination. Or the examination cheating. And it exacted retribution.

Rutgers University sent a negative letter of recommendation to the New Jersey Board of Bar Examiners recommending that bar applicant 00777-1997 not be admitted to the bar. Why?

Well, no one has ever seen the negative recommendation letter other than Rutgers University or the Board of Bar Examiners, not even the now former Social Security Disability recipient. A member of Board of Bar Examiners character and fitness committee did read the letter over the telephone to the bar applicant. What it stated is a plausible reason why it still is being concealed by the New Jersey Supreme Court which oversees the Board of Bar Examiners.

The letter said, nothing more or less, than Rutgers objected to how the student ‘handled’ the 1995 cheating scandal. No particulars were given, no explanations. And for good reason - to give any particulars or explanations would entail either outright lying to the New Jersey Supreme Court or so hideously misrepresenting actual events through legal ‘spin’ that it risked exposing a larger truth: Rutgers University actively seeks to exclude the disabled, and former Social Security Disability recipients, from enrollment and post-enrollment services on a meaningful basis. And post-graduation benefits as well.

The attempt to block the disabled individual from becoming a member of the New Jersey Bar failed. But Rutgers persisted whenever the opportunity arose.

In 2003, the same individual tried out for the alumni rowing team at the Rutgers-Camden campus. Despite being praised by the rowing coach - in fact, the rowing coach could not believe the alumnus had never rowed before - the director of the Rutgers Alumni Association for the Camden campus, Charles Mannella, began harassing the alumnus. How the harassment took place is interesting - accusations. Not just accusations but accusations of irresponsible conduct, a deja vu to the negative recommendation gambit.

What did Mr. Mannella accuse the alumnus of doing? Nothing more or less than failing to attain required rowing team workouts. In fact, the alumnus had attended every meeting and workout. Mr. Mannella persisted. In short order, the alumnus ceased being invited to any rowing team meetings, events and functions. The situation was so attenuated that the newly hired rowing coach felt intimidated to intervene when advised of Mr. Mannella’s conduct.

Why did Mr. Manella and Ms. Dushoff engage in their conducts? They could simply be cast aside as less then exemplary human beings. But that does not address the financial motivation - afterall, Dean Dushoff was the one who unilaterally offered the “We have to separate the students for our employers somehow” rationale.

A clarifying answer can be found in a 1996 incident at the same Rutgers Law School. A young, healthy pregnant woman refused to take a pregnancy leave of absence. She only wanted to be excused from one week of classes after the child birth. Her demeanor unleashed a torrent of abusive conduct by the Rutgers administrative personnel unlikely ever to be forgotten.

No less than two deans, including the same Elaine G. Dushoff, pronounced the young woman - according to the young woman - this way: “You must not be a very good mother if you don’t want to take a pregnancy leave.” The second dean was a male administrative dean within the law school.

In short, Rutgers University was attempting to kick a young woman off their campus - extend her length of studies at some financial burden thereby delaying her ultimate employment post-graduation - for no other reason than she was pregnant? It may be hard to believe...until one remembers the Dushoff espousement. It’s all about money - that separation for the benefit of employers ‘economic’ thing.

Keeping the young woman enrolled while pregnant meant Rutgers was incurring an insurance risk that she would stumble, fall, or otherwise be injured on campus. Nothing out of the normal about that, any student can file an insurance claim for stumbling and falling. But she was pregnant: that’s two claims for the price of one. And the likelihood that costs would be higher for pre-natal injury to a child is obvious, Rutgers would be on the hook for substantial costs. Hence, a simple economic policy: get rid of her.

Take that psychology and apply it to Charles Mannella and the Rutgers Alumni Association: a ‘no disabled or former injured need apply’ policy now makes perfect sense. Instead of separating ‘students for our employers’, Rutgers separates students and alumni for their insurance companies - regardless of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the federal Rehabilitation Act. If Rutgers can do so on before-the-fact basis for potential employers - a sort of ‘Psst, you guys don’t want to hire this person over here because they have prior injuries’ policy - so much the better to engrandise yourself with your chief means of income, your endowment and alumni donations.

Rutgers University would much rather take the risk of being sued - discrimination cases are difficult to prove, particularly when nothing is committed to writing as Dean Dushoff’s conduct elegantly demonstrated. And you can write Student Handbooks in such a way that any remedial address of the behavior is impossible in a timely way. (The Rutgers Law School student handbook from 1993 through 1997 remains a remarkably evasive document, it imposed no ethical conduct standards on the University.)

As you will see in future articles, the ‘Rutgers template’ on how to sabotage economic rehabilitation efforts by America’s disabled is no idle past practice. The philosophy is a living, portable thing.

While slavery is no longer available to validate the economic policies, that does not mean the overall business model that led to slavery - and supported slavery - is defunct.

New Jersey opposed the banning of slavery. It is historical fact. And it opposed the banning of slavery at a time and age quite late in humanity’s moral and philosophical evolution on the topic. More than one million people had just died on America's battlefields to end slavery when New Jersey inarguably voted to continue it - it is a damningly eloquent point underscoring New Jersey's economic motivations indiscriminate of damage to human life.

One hundred and forty years later, as future articles about MaGee Rehabilitation Hospital in Philadelphia will detail, slavery may be gone - but the people who created it, supervised it to fruition, and then tenaciously opposed its banning did survive the experience. And they spread their learned business acumens into the new, non-slavery financial world. Like a ripple spreading across a financial pond, the effects of that business mentality are still playing themselves out in 21st Century New Jersey.

Tracing the post-slavery business acumen is a fascinating journey into the modern legal system, a system that can be claimed to be corrupt and prone to manipulation. Why it may be corrupt and manipulated is a larger topic. Both topics will be explored at this website.

As for the title of this article, it was not a trite ploy to garner attention: it is current United States Attorney General for New Jersey Christopher Christie who said contemporary New Jersey is the most corrupt governmental entity since Al Capone’s Chicago. In that light, Rutgers University may be the State University of New Jersey in more ways than one would like to think.


- Qi