A Plea to the Academic Community
Defending Freedom of Academic Discourse
and Denouncing the Abuse of Research Subjects/Case Studies
Background: Alice Dreger has written an article on the controversy that ensued after J Michael Bailey published a book on transsexualism and male femininity. Alice Dreger is a professor at the same university, Northwestern, which did an investigation that left still unresolved the charges that Anjelica Kieltyka and other women portrayed in the book brought against the author, also a professor at Northwestern University. I, Curtis E. Hinkle, have been working with Anjelica to reveal the truth and expose the obfuscation of facts and continued abuse and neglect of some very vulnerable women used as unprecedented case studies without their expressed informed consent. As a result, I have all the transcripts of Anjelica’s interviews with Dreger and all the documentation on Lynn Conway’s website, two of the main sources for Dreger’s article. After reading Dreger’s article, it is obvious that it is biased and not based on the actual documentation that she cites.
Academics who are interested in serious academic discourse and ethical treatment of vulnerable case studies and/or research subjects are negligent by not demanding serious questions concerning this unprecedented abuse which is once again being perpetrated against Anjelica and the other women in the book. If the academic community does not ask serious questions and demand high ethical standards of other academics, the damage that this will do to freedom of speech and ethics in academia could be irreparable.
Intimidation of a Witness in the Investigation at Northwestern University
First consider the Bailey Controversy as reported by Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism.
Please note: According to Anjelica, the only truth that has ever come out of Northwestern University since this whole Bailey Controversy started, has been from the Medill School of Journalism – distinguished for their successful efforts in freeing innocent victims of injustice from death row –
Ask yourself the following questions:
Secondly, consider the Bailey Controversy from the Southern Poverty Law Center’s perspective and look at Bailey's connections.
Now ask yourself these important questions:
Why would The Southern Poverty Law Center immediately understand why Anjelica's complaint, the disturbing evidence she presented and the threats she received were to be taken seriously?
Why would Dreger, who considers herself a queer rights activist, (pg3.) concerned for the health and welfare of the GLBT and Intersex Communities (and other sexual minorities), dismiss Anjelica Kieltyka’s repeated attempts to show her where the real controversy and conspiracy lay : On Prof. Bailey’s “doorstep” and his “Queer Science” and “Queen” book?
Facts:
1) Anjelica was on a hate site
2) Medill’s editorial staff confirmed the serious threats made against Anjelica.
More important questions to consider:
Who had most to gain by threatening Anjelica, a key witness in the whole Bailey “affair”?
Who has most to gain by compromising, coercing or discrediting Anjelica and/or the other vulnerable women who testified against Bailey?
4) Alice Dreger incredulously overlooks all these disturbing facts, never deals with the chilling effects they would have on the subsequent investigation and simply ignores or dismisses the evidence presented by both the editors of Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Obfuscation and Cover-up by Northwestern University
Please read the following paragraph on Alice Dreger's blog in response to Joan Roughgarden:
"Prof. Roughgarden said "Some of the women claim to have had sex with him as well." In 2003, after meetings with Conway, one and only one woman, "J*******," […] claimed that in 1998 (five years earlier) she had "sexual relations" of an unspecified sort with Prof. Bailey (for details, see my article, pp. 41-46). Her friend Kieltyka has speculated J******* was paid by Conway to produce this charge (see p. 28 of my article). Prof. Bailey has provided evidence that he could not have been where J******* claims he was when they had sex (see my article, pp. 43-44). J******* is now refusing to discuss this with the press." Source: http://www.alicedreger.com/kqed_forum_corrections.html
Please Note : Anjelica Kieltyka is the one who brought this Dreger Blog to my attention. She has stated emphatically that " Dreger and Bailey are BOTH lying here."
Anjelica continued : "First of all, my speculations NEVER included J******* being paid by Conway (or anyone for that matter) to "produce" or make-up or file the "sex charges". Second of all, Bailey's evidence (his "alibi") is totally bogus. He was NOT home "babysitting" on the night into morning in question. Dr. Bailey was out partying at "Shelter" with J******* and me on the night of March 21 (Saturday) and left with J******* at around 4 in the morning Sunday, March 22 when the club closed. I have no evidence for what happened afterwards. That is "he said-she said" or "Dreger said-Bailey said".
She again emphasizes : " Both of them are lying and Dreger is covering-up for Bailey."
Here is what Dreger says Anjelica said on page 28 of her article defending Bailey entitled, The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen: A Case History of the Politics of Science, Identity, and Sex in the Internet Age:
"Finally, although Kieltyka told me that the only money she received from Conway was to reimburse her for phone calls made as part of their collaboration, Kieltyka speculated to me that in J*******'s case, monetary reward for her aid to Conway's "investigation"—including her sexual relations charge against Bailey—may have been substantially higher. Kieltyka adds "[J*******] denied it, so I had no proof" - (Kieltyka, 2006d).
The facts:
Both J******* and Anjelica were witnesses of the same sexual charges. Anjelica was a witness to his leaving with J******* herself. There was no reason to pay J******* to include the sexual charges because everyone knew Anjelica was going to substantiate those charges herself.
This next point is important in order to reveal the cover-up and manipulation of facts to protect Bailey. In Dreger's article she uses the words "including her sexual relations charge against Bailey" but on her blog she has very cleverly replaced that phrase with "produce" the sex charges. This gives the impression that the testimony was not only included but actually fabricated. That is totally erroneous.
Defamation and Abuse of Research Subjects/Case Studies at Northwestern University
I have spent hours speaking with Anjelica Kieltyka and reading the interview transcripts that Dreger had. My investigation has led me to think there are some possible serious abuse of these women still going on that should be investigated and denounced.
a) Dreger's article appears to me to be an attempt to discredit an already defamed and intimidated witness and former participant in research/case studies at Northwestern University.
b) Anjelica Kieltyka was misled about the contents of the book and what parts of her participation were to be included and what aspects of her private life were to be considered public.
c) Dreger devotes a lot of time to further include salacious details about Anjelica in her recent article and selectively chooses not to include information that would be prejudicial against Bailey.
d) Dreger asked leading questions in her interview. For example: "Why did the story change?" I find no evidence that the story changed. Framing this question this way is biased.
e) Dreger is further abusing Anjelica Kieltyka by depicting her as pathetic and most likely delusional. I strongly disagree and so did Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism and the Southern Poverty Law Center. I feel that Anjelica has very good reasons to feel further intimidated, defamed and manipulated after reading both Bailey's "Queen" book and Dreger's article defending Bailey.
Notes:
(1) Dreger: [When did the woman identified as J******* first tell you that she had had sexual relations with Bailey? When did you learn about that?]
Anjelica: She told me the day after Bailey drove her home from the Shelter nightclub, that Bailey had tried to do something .... that they had "messed around" – She was being slightly evasive and uneasy so I left it alone. When Lynn Conway were over at my house, J******* was there, and that's when she told the two of us that Bailey in fact had had sex with her. This was the first time that I found out it wasn't that he had "tried something" - it was that he had tried to have sex with her. But that he couldn't get it up.
Dreger: [Why did the story change?]
Anjelica: One could interpret that as her telling me on the day after it happened that he "tried something" – that "something" was "tried to have sex with her ..... but couldn't get it up". Maybe she was embarrassed for him or thought maybe she was to blame – that she felt inadequate being a transexual ..... so she left it as "tried something" back then ..... So maybe now she has no need to protect his "manhood" or his reputation – she sees how he is embarrasing her with what he says about her in his book.
From Dreger's interview notes of :
Charlotte Anjelica Kieltyka
Monday, August 21, 2006
Approx. 12:15 Central
DRAFT (for CAK to correct, if she wishes, and return)
[Alice Dreger's comments/questions appear in brackets.]
(2) "Amazingly, somehow in the midst of all this controversy, Bailey managed to be vilified by both the right- and left-wing presses. Although the book received a warm review from John Derbyshire in the ultra-conservative National Review (Derbyshire, 2003), the equally conservative Washington Times reported both the Northwestern investigation into Bailey as well as the disgust among certain House Republicans that Bailey’s sexual arousal studies received federal funding (McCain, 2003). Almost simultaneously, the ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) claimed in their Intelligence Report that “many of those who praised” TMWWBQ “belong to a private cyber-discussion group of a neo-eugenics outfit, the Human Biodiversity Institute (HBI)” (Beirich & Moser, 2003)."
Source: The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen: A Case History of the Politics of Science, Identity, and Sex in the Internet Age, page 32 by Alice D. Dreger, Ph.D.