From: backpack@access.digex.com (Stuart Reges)
Subject: Update on me
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:19:34 GMT

Since I first posted something last week, several people have asked me for an
update on what I'm doing.  For those of you who don't know me, I was fired from
Stanford University last spring in a highly publicized case.  I defied the new
government-mandated drug policy at Stanford and I eventually got the attention
of drug "czar" Bob Martinez, who insisted that I be punished.  Stanford said
they were firing me because I claimed to have carried drugs in my backpack on
campus, but I believe the facts support my contention that I was fired for
expressing the "wrong" opinions about drugs.

Last summer I posted to these newsgroups the formal grievance I submitted to
the university.  My grievance generated a six-month process of negotiation.
The Dean of Engineering wrote me a letter saying that he found nothing in my
grievance to convince him that he was wrong, but he found a possible "opening"
in a particular statement of mine.  I had said that it was impossible for me to
promise to abide by the policy when it wasn't clear what the policy prohibited.
I said that I could only state specific intentions relative to specific
actions.  He said that it would be important to him if I could state that I
didn't intend to carry drugs on campus.

It was obvious that the Dean was looking for a compromise we could both live
with.  He was sincerely trying to rehire me, but he wanted to have a piece of
paper he could fall back on when he "took the heat" (his words).  When I
discussed this with my friends, they said that the challenge was to find a
piece of paper that I could also fall back on.  I was in a difficult situation.
I didn't think the university should require me to make such a statement, but
it was true that I didn't intend to carry drugs on campus.  The analogy I used
in my own mind was that they were asking me to sign a piece of paper affirming
that I didn't intend to wear green underwear on campus.  I didn't think it was
any of their business whether or not I intended to wear green underwear, but
the statement was true.

I finally drafted a statement that included the sentence, "I do not intend to
carry drugs on campus," but which also stated that these were my intentions not
because I recognized the university's authority to limit such behavior but
because I didn't want to involve the university in my protests.  The Dean and I
met to discuss my statement, but he didn't really like it.  It didn't sound
sufficiently committed.  I then explained to him that the main reason I didn't
intend to carry drugs on campus was that I wanted to infuriate Bob Martinez and
the other drug warriors, and I knew that the most effective way to do that
would be to get my job back and to continue to do drugs and talk about it, but
to limit my actions to off-campus locations so that they could not pressure
Stanford to act against me (because off-campus drug use is not prohibited by
the university policy).  The Dean loved that.  He said, "Include that in your
statement."  That explanation convinced him of my sincerity, and that's why he
liked it.  I liked the idea of including it as well, because it meant that I
was not deceiving the university about my intentions relative to illegal drug
use.  I showed the Dean a final version of my statement, and he approved it.
So there was a day in July when I was convinced that I was about to be rehired.

But it wasn't meant to be.  About a month later I got a message from one of the
Dean's underlings saying that my statement was not acceptable.  It was "too
specific" and needed to be expanded to cover the entire policy (even though the
entire basis of our negotiation was my complaint that I could only make
specific statements, not general ones).  The Dean had also changed his mind
about my mentioning off-camus drug activities.  He realized that this might not
play well in Peoria, so he said that I had to delete any statements implying
off-campus drug use, because otherwise the inclusion of such statements would
imply the university's approval.

The Dean and I had an unproductive meeting where I convinced myself that we
could not come to terms.  For example, he wanted me to say that I didn't intend
to use drugs at "University activities," but he could not define that term for
me.  I asked him whether it would be a "University activity" if after our
weekly staff meeting a group of my TAs and I went out to dinner for a social
get-together.  No, he said, that would not be a University activity.  What if I
invited them over to my apartment instead and we socialized by smoking pot
rather than eating dinner?  That probably would be a University activity, he
said, but it wasn't really up to him to say (it was up to the courts).  I
couldn't explain to him my reluctance to make a statement whose import was
unclear and whose terms were not even defined.  Anyway, I told him that I could
not make statements using undefined terms and I could not delete the sentence
about off-campus drug use because even though an omission is not technically a
lie, it was rather late in the game for me to start making statements that were
not fair characterizations of my intentions (especially since the entire case
against me was based on my own statements of intent).

Anyway, that was that for several months.  But one day out of the blue the Dean
called me to discuss my grievace (he still hadn't formally responded to it).
He asked me what my intent was in asking for an additional year's severance
pay.  I started to explain my arguments why I thought they contractually owed
me another year's salarly, but he explained that he was asking a different
question.  He wanted to know what I would intend to do if I received such a
payment.  "Well, I wouldn't sue the university," I said.  THAT was what he
wanted to hear.  "Put that in writing," he said, "and I'll respond with a
check."  It wasn't quite as simple as that, because naturally it took another
two months and an exchange of legalistic documents where I promised not to sue
Stanford and to present to them my firstborn if ever I did, but eventually they
did respond with a check.  So the story had a happy libertarian ending after
all, at least in terms of settling disputes based on contractual obligations.

I've decided to use the Stanford money to spend some time writing, which is
something I've always wanted to do.  I'm working on a book about my experiences
with being openly gay and taking unpopular positions on drugs.  I'm also
writing articles on unrelated topics for libertarian magazines.  Liberty
Magazine will be publishing an article of mine in June about a Chrisitian
Science couple who were convicted of manslaughter for relying solely on prayer
in the care of their sick baby who died.  And, believe it or not, I'm currently
working on an article defending Stanford in the controversy over indirect
research costs charged to the government (it's really odd to be getting
friendly phone calls and fed ex packages from the Associate Vice President for
Public Affairs at Stanford!).

There are several questions about which I would like to solicit input from
readers of these newsgroups that will help me write the book I'm working on.
I'll send out those questions slowly over time rather than hitting them all at
once.  I would probably be willing to share the rough drafts of some of the
material I'm writing if anyone is interested.  I'll post a bit of my current
introduction in a follow-up message as a small preview.

+---------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
|  b	  p	| Stuart Reges (target uSeRs?)	backpack@access.digex.com |
|   a	   a	|							  |
|    c	    c	| You've gotta live, live, live!  Life is a banquet and   |
|     k	     k	| most poor suckers are starving to death.  --Auntie Mame |
+---------------+---------------------------------------------------------+