From the Boulder Weekly
November 2002:


Report blasts CU for Zamudio conspiracy
Investigation details administrative vendetta against whistle blower

by Wayne Laugesen

A new report by a University of Colorado faculty committee makes
damning statements about the way the university's Department of
Sociology treated former Assistant Professor Margie Zamudio. A faculty
hearing beginning Nov. 22 will try to determine whether she was
wrongly terminated, and whether she should be reinstated with back pay
and benefits.

Zamudio, who teaches at another major university after being denied
reappointment at CU, says she's not nearly as concerned with getting
her job back as she is with exposing what she describes as sociology
department scandals involving drugs, racism and unlawful use of
department funds.

Zamudio's high-profile troubles date back to a sociology department
faculty party in February 1998. Zamudio has for four years described
the party as a drug orgy of heroin, cocaine and marijuana. Zamudio
claims she gave in to peer pressure, got high, and quickly relapsed
into drug abuse after 12 years of sobriety and abstinence from drug
habits she developed while growing up in a rough part of Los Angeles.

Zamudio, who says her addiction quickly spiraled out of control in the
first few weeks following the party, confessed her problem to faculty
administrators and sought time off for treatment.

"I never said it was OK that I was using drugs," Zamudio tells Boulder
Weekly. "I wanted treatment, and they used my circumstance as a way to
get rid of me. They figured they could get rid of me, because they had
just hired a new faculty member who was black, and they only need one
of us minorities around."

Zamudio insists she was fired because of an intense form of "liberal
racism" that's rampant in the department.

"I was hired as a response to the chancellor's findings that the
department was discriminating against Latinos," says Zamudio. "Well,
the fact that they hired a Latino assistant professor didn't make the
department less racist. The racism in that department is carried out
the way good liberals act out racism. They do everything possible so
that they don't appear racist, but they treat you differently than
anyone else. They wanted to appear that they were not racist, but they
didn't want to do anything about racism.

"They claimed they had a problem with me because of my drug use. But
that doesn't work, because they had no problem with the fact that Dan
Cress was arrested that night after the party on drug-related charges.
He's a white male."

Cress, also an assistant professor of sociology at the time, was
arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

Zamudio said the department–particularly in regards to one
professor–also exhibits anti-Catholic bigotry. Catholic holidays such
as Ash Wednesday, Zamudio says, were occasions for one prominent
faculty member to spew a barrage of bigoted, anti-Catholic jokes at
Marco Martinez–who complained publicly about the bigotry in a letter
to local newspapers.

Although she believes racism was at the center of her ousting, Zamudio
says the main reason she was fired pertained to the fact she raised
too many objections to the department's close affiliation with
Landmark Forum–a highly controversial organization.

"Most of the ranking faculty members pressure graduate students into
joining," Zamudio says. "It's expensive, costing hundreds of dollars
for one person to attend one meeting, and I have evidence that
university funds are being channeled into this organization through
the pressuring of graduate students to join up."

The Landmark Forum, previously known as "EST," promises to help people
lead more valuable and meaningful lives by overcoming that which holds
them back. A critical web page called "Inside the Landmark Forum,"
however, describes the organization as "a for-profit company whose
business is to collect money from people in exchange for emotional
dependency on the company."

Zamudio argues that Sociology Chairman Dennis Mileti is a paid member
of Landmark Forum and he uses the department to bolster his standing
in the organization. Zamudio has audio tape of former graduate student
Eric Primm talking about a loan of hundreds of dollars from Joyce
Nielson, associate dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, that he
needed in order to attend a Landmark Forum meeting. Zamudio says
graduate students often complained, while she was there, that faculty
members favored those who joined and paid the Landmark Forum.

Boulder Weekly attempted to get Mileti's side of the story. But Mileti
said all substantive questions would have to be answered by Pauline
Hale, a university public relations specialist. However, he agreed to
answer questions about "procedure" in the sociology department.

Weekly: "Do ranking members in the sociology department pressure
graduate students to join the Landmark Forum, and does the department
sometimes pay their fees?"

Mileti: Eight second pause.

Weekly: "Is there any truth to that?"

Mileti: "I can't answer that, you need to address that question to
Pauline (Hale)."

Weekly: "Would she know anything about it?"

Mileti: "Pauline will do whatever she needs to do to get answers to
all your questions. But that's not a question about procedure."

Weekly: "Dr. Zamudio claims the department is racist, that there's
bigotry against Latinos. Is racism a procedure used by your
department?"

Mileti: "Again, that's specific to the case, and I'm actually
prohibited by state law to discuss personnel matters. You may ask me
about generic procedures."

Weekly: "What was the generic procedure that led to her no longer
working at CU?"

Mileti: "To talk about ‘her' is not generic, it's specific to a
personnel matter, and it's against the law in the state of Colorado
for me to discuss those things with people who aren't part of the
state system."

Mileti ended the conversation by reminding Boulder Weekly to contact
Hale.

Mileti: "Pauline (Hale) can answer specifics about this case, I
cannot. Pauline is in the university department that's there
specifically to deal with people like you."

Hale, unfortunately, was even less helpful than Mileti. We started by
asking about Zamudio's Landmark Forum charges.

Hale: "I'd like to help you out, be we just simply don't comment on
pending federal litigation," referring to a racial discrimination case
Zamudio has filed.

Weekly: "I understand that there's a hearing at the university on
Friday in which Dr. Zamudio will argue to be reinstated."

Hale, interrupting question: "We can't comment on personnel matters
either, sorry about that."

Weekly: "But Dr. Mileti said he can't answer questions, but you can.
He said you could answer any questions I might have about this
personnel matter."

Hale: "Well, he's misinformed on that. I'm sorry about that, but
that's our policy."

Zamudio says her allegations against the department will be proven,
but only if the University of Colorado Board of Regents or some other
authority demands the truth.

"The sociology department needs to be taken apart and audited to
determine how much money has gone to the Landmark Forum," Zamudio
says.

It's talk like that, Zamudio insists, that caused Mileti to get rid of
her in the first place.

"He does not like being confronted on the Landmark issue," Zamudio
says. "He's extremely sensitive about it, because he knows the
department is being used to channel money to (Landmark Forum)."

Back in 1999, while Zamudio was still fighting for her job after
revealing her drug problem, a faculty committee recommended her
reappointment. The recommendation was supposed to go to a vote of the
sociology faculty for rejection or approval on Nov. 2, 1999. But
Zamudio says Mileti canceled the election.

"Then he went out and looked for negative information to put in my
file, in an effort to get the recommendation changed," Zamudio says.
"He solicited FCQs (a questionnaire for evaluating faculty) from
students in classes that I wasn't at because of my time off. He purged
the file of information that was favorable to me, and he stuffed it
with anything he could get his hands on that worked against me."

A report by the Committee on Privilege and Tenure–a quasi-judicial
entity that investigated Zamudio's charges–describes an intricate
conspiracy by CU officials to get rid of Zamudio. The report details
how Todd Gleeson, dean of arts and sciences and assistant dean at the
time, instructed Mileti to obtain negative FCQs on Zamudio to use
against her.

The report states: "He (Mileti) selectively ‘interviews students'
contrary to his own department's practices to document teaching
problems." The report accuses Mileti, at the direction of Gleeson, of
creating one delay after another in Zamudio's reappointment process,
which "creates the opportunity to document problems."

"The reappointment case, when it is finally made to the faculty, is
made on the grounds of ‘no productivity,' or unacceptable performance
in both research and teaching," the report states.

In a summary about Zamudio's "reappointment process," which faculty go
through routinely on the road to tenure, the report states: Zamudio's
"rights to a fair, impartial and consistent process were at best
seriously interfered with, and at worst effectively denied… Facts that
were not at all pertinent to the reappointment process were commingled
with facts that were central to the evaluative functions of that
process. Speculations, rumors and assumptions entered into the
different discussions of the candidate's record, breaching the
requirement that those discussions deal only with the facts."

The report, with "CONFIDENTIAL" stamped on all 21 pages, is signed by
Darna Dufour, professor of anthropology, and Peter Schneider,
professor of architecture, who led the investigative committee.

It also states that "the University violated either the Laws of the
Regents, Departmental Policies for Reappointment, and/or departmental
norms in the process which culminated in the decision not to
reappoint" Zamudio.

[www.boulderweekly.com]

To Pennybright---

I'll use my spellchecker next time! What have you published recently?

To Ellen---

I never volunteered for anything Landmark. As a matter of fact I never took any courses from Landmark after the Forum. I don't care what it's genesis is or what "historical" figures from the past had to do with it.

To Glam--- Lot's of questions that are only answered on a need to know basis--- and you don't need to know.
I'm not fond of interviews.

There were things I liked about it and things I didn't. The Forum Leader was quite affable and entertaining. At no time was anyone humiliated or mistreated in my presence.

We were interested in finding out more about it because many patients with substance abuse problems have benefitted

Some excerpts from

Psychotherapy Cults: An Ethical Analysis

Kim Boland,Lewis & Clark College, Portland, Oregon

Gordon Lindbloom, Ph.D. Lewis & Clark College Portland, Oregon


'The essential characteristics of these groups were described variously. Appel wrote that “therapeutic cults frame the salvation they offer in psychological terms, as personal liberation or cure” (1983, p. 19). The Temerlins summarized their analyses in the following way:

'These cults were an iatrogenic perversion of therapy because the character problems their patients brought to therapy were not worked through, but were replaced in consciousness by a “true believing” acceptance of their therapists' theories, selfless devotion to their therapists' welfare, unrecognized depression, and paranoid attitudes toward nonbelieving professionals'. (Temerlin & Temerlin, 1982, p. 132)

Based on the descriptions available, the central features of the groups whose practices are under scrutiny here can be defined in at least a minimal way. They include (a) the use of psychotherapy language and concepts to offer help; (b) a predominant emphasis on working in a group; (c) the appearance and claim of competent professional leadership; (d) the elevation of a leader to charismatic status and idealization by members; (e) self-sacrifice by members on behalf of the leader and group; (f) the development of a strong group identity that separates them from other associations, groups, and professionals; and (g) the development of strong pressures for conformity and submission to the norms and practices of the group.'

'Group dynamics are utilized to ensure that the private is made public (Ayella, 1985). The leader and other group members expect total “openness” or access into all parts of clients' lives, and sometimes those of leaders as well (Boland, 1989; Ofshe, 1976; Temerlin & Temerlin, 1986). This openness then leads to efforts to exert wide areas of control over the attitudes and behavior of members. Behavior that is not compliant is often viewed as resistance or a sign of character flaws (Ayella, 1985; Ofshe, 1976; Temerlin & Temerlin, 1982). These behaviors are then targets of “therapy,” with the goal being that the member would surrender the identified deviance and adhere to group norms (Ofshe, 1976). '

finally

Competency

Mental health professionals are responsible under their codes of ethics to be cognizant of the limitations of their individual competence and of the therapeutic techniques they employ (APA, 1989; ASGW, 1983; NASW, 1990). Common violations of these assumptions involve accepting clients for which one is not prepared, using techniques in which one is not proficient, and not recognizing the extent to which some clients will benefit from a particular approach while others may not. In discussing the formation of groups, Yalom (1985) acknowledges the reality that the difficulty of finding enough participants often overrides considerations of appropriate fit. Safeguards intended to limit potential harm to clients in such situations include pregroup screening interviews, informed consent to the purposes and procedures of the group, therapist protection of clients from excessive group pressures, and protection of the freedom of the client to exit from the group at any time (Lakin, 1986).

Groups under study here are described as taking very different approaches to these questions. Accounts of their recruitment practices imply that they commonly take all comers. Their conduct suggests that they believe that their brand of treatment can be practiced without consideration of the individual characteristics and needs of clients. They appear to believe that the treatment itself is so powerful that any limitations are ignored (Ayella, 1985; Kottler, 1982). The therapy is standardized and applied to all clients, who are expected to fit into a very restrictive treatment framework (Ayella, 1985; Boland, 1989). Clients are encouraged to blame themselves for lack of progress.

the entire article can be read here:

[board.culteducation.com]

Laslow:

There is no scientific peer reviewed study that has been published in a journal, which demonstrates there are any objective results that have been measured related to Landmark Education and its courses.

The only reports I have seen offer essentially testimonials of subjective results.

If you are a professional concerned about clients you should be working with proven programs with a far less controversial track record and clinical studies to support their efficacy.

See the following research:

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

[www.culteducation.com]

The above research outlines and/or demonstrates issues of concern regarding Landmark Education historically, serious problems associated with its courses and problems related to mass marathon training generally.

What Landmark apparently is good at, is convincing people they have received benefits from its courses. And it seems this is what they have accomplished regarding your own situation.

Quote
laslow
To Pennybright---

I'll use my spellchecker next time! What have you published recently?

To Ellen---

I never volunteered for anything Landmark. As a matter of fact I never took any courses from Landmark after the Forum. I don't care what it's genesis is or what "historical" figures from the past had to do with it.

To Glam--- Lot's of questions that are only answered on a need to know basis--- and you don't need to know.
I'm not fond of interviews.

There were things I liked about it and things I didn't. The Forum Leader was quite affable and entertaining. At no time was anyone humiliated or mistreated in my presence.

We were interested in finding out more about it because many patients with substance abuse problems have benefitted

Gee......


Hard to believe you're "legit" with that response.


Hard to believe anyone with an academic background would be so dismissive of information out of hand that is offered in good faith by those with a lot more knowledge about a subject than you are apparently aware of.


Hard to believe that someone in "research" has so little regard for the "research" of thousands that might contradict what you've posted.


Despite what you claim to have experienced, Landmark, and similar programs, use a type of indoctrination that is predicated on some form of humiliation, fear, and regression.


You might want to read up a little on Synanon. They had some "success" treating substance abuse, as you may be aware.



Ellen


Oh, and here's another link to an article about problems at another university in which some members got involved with Landmark:


[www.culteducation.com]

To rrmoderator----

I wasn't defending Landmark, just contending that humiliation that can lead to depression as stated in the above article was not observed by me or my colleagues in our Forum. Landmark isn't therapy or promoted as such and no one here is recommending it to patients.

Ellen said----

Hard to believe anyone with an academic background would be so dismissive of information out of hand that is offered in good faith by those with a lot more knowledge about a subject than you are apparently aware of.


What do you know and how do you know it? That was a question from my previous post. Unsubstantiated opinion from anonymous sources does not pass the critical litmus test of legitimacy. And my only claim was that humiliation was not a "technique" or byproduct of the Forum I attended. Just stating my observations. Could be that every other Forum ever held was some sadomasochistic orgy. I don't know.

For the record, I'm working in biochemistry research. I couldn't write a prescription for someone to Landmark if I wanted to.

But we didn't view it as an alternative treatment to anything.

Not to worry. I can tell your earnest in your concern about these issues. That's admirable.

Cheers!

Quote

To Glam--- Lot's of questions that are only answered on a need to know basis--- and you don't need to know.
I'm not fond of interviews.

Yes, of course. It's quite common for Landmark attendees to avoid answering questions. Also common for them to be kinda rude about it, as in "you don't need to know."

This tactic is commonly used by Landmark leaders and "graduates" to shut down any honest inquiries about Landmark.

Cheers!

Quote
laslow
To rrmoderator----

I wasn't defending Landmark, just contending that humiliation that can lead to depression as stated in the above article was not observed by me or my colleagues in our Forum. Landmark isn't therapy or promoted as such and no one here is recommending it to patients.

Ellen said----

Hard to believe anyone with an academic background would be so dismissive of information out of hand that is offered in good faith by those with a lot more knowledge about a subject than you are apparently aware of.


What do you know and how do you know it? That was a question from my previous post. Unsubstantiated opinion from anonymous sources does not pass the critical litmus test of legitimacy. And my only claim was that humiliation was not a "technique" or byproduct of the Forum I attended. Just stating my observations. Could be that every other Forum ever held was some sadomasochistic orgy. I don't know.

For the record, I'm working in biochemistry research. I couldn't write a prescription for someone to Landmark if I wanted to.

But we didn't view it as an alternative treatment to anything.

Not to worry. I can tell your earnest in your concern about these issues. That's admirable.

Cheers!

Doesn't look like you even clicked on any of the links we provided.

Doesn't look like you have any idea what combination of unsubstantiated opinions, experiences, facts, conjectures, historical references, court depositions, newpaper and magazine articles, expert opinions, scholarly opinions, and eyewitness testimonies we have collected.

You write as a "true believer" and have parrotted your Landmark defenses with an astonishing type of closed-mindedness. Whew! Landmark "training" has been likened to "catnip for the conceited." Thanks for giving such a great example.


Ellen

'laslow wrote:

Quote

I and a number of my colleagues did the Landmark Forum for both personal and professional reasons. At no time was anyone humiliated in our presence.

If you and your colleagues mentioned your occupations & affiliations (health care professionals/graduate students at a prestigious university/medical institution) when filling out registration material, for the seminar you attended, there is a chance that you were routed to a seminar where everyone was on their best behavior---'celebrity treatment'.

As health care professionals and researchers, your endorsements would have been especially valuable. Perhaps care would have been taken that you were treated well and no one humiliated in your presence.

(quote)

For the record, I'm working in biochemistry research. I couldn't write a prescription for someone to Landmark if I wanted to.'

Health care professionals who create & abuse dual relationships do not usually do this by writing prescriptions. In the vast majority of cases, they do it through word of mouth recommendations, [b:2ca5d72267]not [/b:2ca5d72267]by writing scrip for a pharmacy, often through hints and subtle encouragement, such as 'I found X to be a helpful adjunct to therapy....'

Its OK to recommend a growth group or belief system among your social equals, [i:2ca5d72267]but its out of bounds [/i:2ca5d72267]to do this with persons who are dependant on you--such as clients, patients and low-ranking graduate students over whom you have authority. Clients and patients see you as a parent figure and cannot easily exercise critical thinking; graduate students are dependant on your approval-eg oral exams, dissertation defense, etc.

Back when I was in graduate school, our department chairman bugged everyone to take EST. Our secretary had a suspicion that X refused to renew her contract because she refused to do EST.

This was 20 years ago, before boundary ethics were understood--as, hopefully, they are understood today.

Elena wrote----


Posted: 10-05-2004 01:45 PM Post subject: Re: Ok???

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

laslow wrote:
To rrmoderator----

I wasn't defending Landmark, just contending that humiliation that can lead to depression as stated in the above article was not observed by me or my colleagues in our Forum. Landmark isn't therapy or promoted as such and no one here is recommending it to patients.

Ellen said----

Hard to believe anyone with an academic background would be so dismissive of information out of hand that is offered in good faith by those with a lot more knowledge about a subject than you are apparently aware of.


What do you know and how do you know it? That was a question from my previous post. Unsubstantiated opinion from anonymous sources does not pass the critical litmus test of legitimacy. And my only claim was that humiliation was not a "technique" or byproduct of the Forum I attended. Just stating my observations. Could be that every other Forum ever held was some sadomasochistic orgy. I don't know.

For the record, I'm working in biochemistry research. I couldn't write a prescription for someone to Landmark if I wanted to.

But we didn't view it as an alternative treatment to anything.

Not to worry. I can tell your earnest in your concern about these issues. That's admirable.

Cheers!




Doesn't look like you even clicked on any of the links we provided.

Doesn't look like you have any idea what combination of unsubstantiated opinions, experiences, facts, conjectures, historical references, court depositions, newpaper and magazine articles, expert opinions, scholarly opinions, and eyewitness testimonies we have collected.

You write as a "true believer" and have parrotted your Landmark defenses with an astonishing type of closed-mindedness. Whew! Landmark "training" has been likened to "catnip for the conceited." Thanks for giving such a great example.


Wow, thats pretty presumptuous of you. Do you always act so aggressively towards people who have a different opinion than you?

What Landmark defense? I stated that humiliation was not part of my Forum. Nothing more. I'd say the closed-minded one is you, Ellen.

Are you also saying that your expertise is based on the weblinks you provided? That was my question. How do you know what you know. It's a simple question.

One answer may be, "I also did the Forum" or "my brother did the Forum" or "I read about at the hyperlinks I provided in my last post"

We have a program for anger management here if you live in the Boston area. Come on by, we think we can help you.

Cheers!!!