Dreger_Bailey

An inquiry into the “Queer Science” and history of the Bailey Controversy on behalf of the Organisation Intersex International

Edited by Curtis E. Hinkle

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.

See: http://web.archive.org/web/20061104024109/http://mesh.medill.northwestern.edu/mnschicago/archives/2003/11/northwestern_pr.html

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 –

“The Innocence Project”

Ask yourself the following questions:

Why would a white woman show up on a hate site specifically targeting African Americans and homosexual men immediately after filing a complaint against J Michael Bailey?

Why would a dead cat show up on Anjelica's door step not long after she is on the hate site?

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?

(They have a whole team of people monitoring hate groups and have people who have infiltrated some of them.)

Why would Dreger dismiss such a report from a legal firm (The Southern Poverty Law Center) as merely an ultra-liberal publication? (Footnote 2)

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.

3) Connections were established between Bailey and racist academics who are involved in artificial genetic selection and other racist and homophibic research

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.

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.

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".

This is what Anjelica said and testified to : "I saw Bailey and J******* leave Shelter together early Sunday morning - March 22, 1998."

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:

Dreger's erroneous report (and blog) are in direct conflict with her own interview notes with Anjelica and Anjelica's statements and testimony: Kieltyka's speculations NEVER included the "sex charges" and her testimony was that she, Anjelica, saw Bailey leave the nightclub with J******* early Sunday morning. J******* was going to go home with Anjelica since they had gone to the club together. Instead she left with Bailey.

In order for Dreger to make these speculations sound convincing, Dreger manipulates some other key facts in her erroneous history. She states that Bailey has proof that he was home at the time of the alleged meeting with J*******. Dreger gives the right date but she states that it was on the night of that date and Anjelica's statements make it clear it was in the morning of that same date. Later, in a conversation with Anjelica, J******* also shared the fact that Bailey couldn't "get it up". (See below: Actual quotes from Dreger's interview notes.)

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.

I feel the time manipulation is deliberate and is used so that it makes the whole charge less credible and therefore makes it look like someone had to be paid to bring the charges and then Dreger puts words in Anjelica's mouth to make it appear that Conway paid J******* to make the charges. (See footnote below with quote from Dreger's article about the time.)

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.

Anjelica would never have speculated that Conway had paid J******* to PRODUCE this charge because J******* had talked about her rendez-vous with Bailey the very next day with Anjelica, long before either of them knew Lynn Conway.

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.

Anjelica Kieltyka files evidence with the Office for the Protection of

Research Subjects at Northwestern re Prof. Bailey's public showing of

a research interview tape of her without prior authorization

October 7, 2003

Oct. 7, 2003

Lewis J. Smith, M.D., Exec. Director

Office for the Protection of Research Subjects

Northwestern University

Abbott Hall, 5th floor

710 N. Lake Shore Drive, Room 532

Chicago, Il. 60611

Dear Dr. Smith

I wish to submit to you important evidence in support of the two formal complaints I filed against J. Michael Bailey for serious misconduct as research scientist and psychology professor. Please pass on this letter and evidence to the OPRS Inquiry Committee now investigating the complaints of research misconduct that have been filed against Prof. Bailey.

As an addendum to all these complaints, I repeat my request to present and discuss this evidence with the Inquiry Committee in person, and be given the opportunity to speak on my behalf as to the harm Prof. Bailey has done to me with his deceitful and malicious conduct.

The evidence I now submit to you is crucial proof of certain violations addressed in the complaint letters submitted to the V.P. of Research, Dr. C. Bradley Moore, specifically the following three items:

1. I am submitting an audio recording on a CD of Prof. Bailey's UCLA Lecture on 06-02-03, in which he showed a grossly excerpted video of me, using it without my authorization and in a context and manner I would never ever have agreed to. That video was made many years ago, and was a research interview of me at a time when I didn't even know that I was being used by Prof. Bailey as a research subject. You need to get that full videotape from Prof. Bailey and you need to allow me to testify to the deception and defamation he committed by showing that old video in the way he did, without authorization, and to the public.

2. I am also submitting a later videotape that I created specifically for my use in the lectures that I gave in Prof. Bailey's Human Sexuality Classes over many years. I never authorized Prof. Bailey to use this tape either, or any part of this tape or any transcript of this tape without my expressed written permission. The manner and context he uses my work, (page 154 in his book), (usurping my image, my self-portrait, my narration and representation of my identity - changing it all to suit his purpose) further defames me . This subreption, this kidnapping of my identity, is tantamount to plagiarism and identity theft.

With his misuses of both these tapes, in these deceitful and self-serving ways, he flagrantly violated my rights to privacy and confidentiality. His self-aggrandizement, and that of his book is at my expense. My almost 10 years of work for and with him as colleague is egregiously misrepresented or left out of his book completely , especially my advocacy and valuable field work within the transexual and psychological community of Chicago. What, in his book, that wasn't a misrepresentation of me, was usurpted from my case study, used out of context to my life narrative and used without my authorization. I am left feeling humiliated, patronized and denigrated. I have been severely wronged by this man. It is unconscionable the extent of his fraud and deception. I implore you ; allow me to present my side of my story....all that he left out or stained. Let me present evidence on my behalf, (with additional supporting evidence) and fully explain it with my testimony, to the Inquiry Committee in person.

3. For your assistance in interpreting the above evidence, I am submitting an interim investigative report concerning Prof. Bailey's showing of his early research interview video of me at UCLA. That investigative report provides background on the events leading up to Prof. Bailey's showing of the tape, establishes the context in which he was motivated to show that old research interview tape, and also reveals evidence of the damages that have been done to me because of the showing of that tape and the defamations of me in his book. This investigative report was compiled by Prof. Lynn Conway of the University of Michigan, based on my testimony, numerous e-mail records and the first-hand reports of numerous witnesses to the events therein described.

As stated in my complaint, I seek your help on all this, so that I may regain my good name from the damage done by Prof. Bailey's many abuses, deceptions, misrepresentations and invalidations of my life, my selfhood and my identity. The other women who have filed complaints also want the chance to speak to the OPRS Inquiry Committee for themselves as to the personal damage he has done to their lives; as for me, I demand the chance to reclaim my life that he has usurped, defamed and pathologized - and continues to do in both his book and in his lectures, and in his Human Sexuality class. I want the opportunity to ultimately obtain a retraction of the falsehoods that he and his work continues to engender.

Bailey's defamations and caricatures of us transexual women are not the doings of a compassionate and responsible head of the Psychology Department of a distinguished University, but rather a calculated, devious and insidious fraud involving the exploitation of individuals who are in an extremely difficult position to defend ourselves. By being forced to come forward to defend ourselves, we've had to face even further public outings with the most serious consequences.

I most earnestly seek your help in clearing my name of the stain that Bailey has placed on it, and in righting the wrongs of his misuse of my name and works in particular.

Openly and honestly yours,

C. Anjelica Kieltyka

cc. Henry Bienen, President

Lawrence B. Dumas, Provost

C. Bradley Moore, Vice President for Research