WBTRUTH ~ Wicked Broward Truth: CTS MUST FIRE ITS PRESIDENT

Dear trustees of CTS:

Please distribute this message to CTS trustees and I implore you to question me if you doubt anything that I state. I am an open book to all of this.  (570) 592 3246 

QUESTION: Would it seem fair if an owner of a business was found to be corrupt... and rather than have an outside agency investigate him/her... the investigation team is made up of a 3 person team of his employees (people who report to him and who can be fired by him)? Ridiculous, right? Absurd. Well this is the system in place at CTS.

(A) I provided a detailed complaint with copies of assignments and e mails that was impeccable in its detail (copied at bottom). 

(B) CTS provided no no data and they used the spoken word to slander me.

Who won? Who do you think? They will try and say the matter is resolved. But kangaroo courts have no legitimacy.

CTS Pres Hunt and Admissions Director Lisa Seiwert are trying gag me. Why? Keep reading. They have blocked me from all communications at CTS yet haven't kicked me out of the school. Strange, don't you think?

I thought the local police was corrupt. They have nothing on CTS. The pattern is always the same. People put job security ahead of their ethics. They are scared. Corruption flourishes.

Mark Robbins    570 592 3246

=================================================================

A MORE SPECIFIC MISSIVE:

HUNT AND SEIWERT ARE RUNNING REALLY HARD FROM THE TRUTH!! IT IS IMPORTANT FoR READERS TO DISTRIBUTE WIDELY BECAUSE THIS LEVEL OF CORRUPTION SHOULD NOT EXIST ANYWHERE. Sunlight is the only disinfectant. 

My Credibility? How about a 3.94 GPA in 19 graduate level classes (MBA at Lehigh Univ and Theology through several schools. I also have an anti-corruption blog that is by far the most acurrate and most well read of any blog. 2 million page views! It is my experience in studying corruption that makes it so easily to identify it.

ABOUT MY SON:

   My son came out as gay when he was 15. I have supported him by going to 6 Christian Affirming gay conferences (Reformation Project and Gay Christian Network). We are putting Billy in college in South Florida so he has a better gay community to be part of.

   Billy is so secure in himself and with others that he was voted Prom King at his high school. He validated my love for him by asking me to write out "I love you" so he could tattoo this on his ankle.

   Then the kangaroo investigative team tells me that, according to Damon Jackson (of Central Arkansas fame), I was disrespectful in class, misogynistic, and I made homophobic remarks. 

FOLKS, THIS CROSSED THE LINE. Of course we know that these are lies because surely all of these remarks would have been pointed out (at the time) when made. But they weren't. Because they are lies. I chose CTS because of the gay affirmation. If Lisa Seiwert is honest she will tell you this. But I don't trust her.

   What we have here is corruption at the highest level. We have here a president, a Dean of admission, and a satellite professor who missed at least half of of the classes.

   We have a snowball of lies... bigger lies to cover the previous ones. We have a President who:

A) Signs off on these lies, or

B) Encourages Damond Jackson to conjure up such huge lies that I would be totally discredited. I refused to listen the slander. slander. I ended the conference call. Show me in the handbook where we are required to take abuse. I will bet Damond Jackson (who said I made homophobic remarks) didn't even know I had a gay son.

   As said, I know a bit about corruption. I have a blog that has sent people to prison. This corrupt syndicate at CTS replicates what I have seen, say, in a corrupt police force. The rank and file says nothing because they don't want to lose their job. Internal affairs (the CTS Investigative team) won't rock the boat for the very same reason. The path of least resistance here is to annihilate the online student... just like police would discredit a citizen.

   Here is the bad news. I am not going anyhere. CTS needs an an ethical and moral enema starting with Alice Hunt at the top followed closely by Lisa Seiwert. I will not tolerate slander and I suggest you move quickly. I am seeking legal help and I will expose CTS for the fraud it is. Time, and more importantly, the truth is on my side.

   I would be mortified to be part of this amazingly corrupt organization. Morale has to be low.

   An offer: Alice Hunt and I take polygraphs on what was said about me that occurred during class. If CTS wins win I will give the school $100,000. If I win, I receive the same and Hunt and Seiwert are fired. My entire local anti-corruption career started with me passing a polygraph test regarding the actions of police. I was never doubted after that.

   You cannot hide. God will NEVER bless this school in the shape it's in.

                   Mark M Robbins

MY COMPLAINT (VERY THOROUGH)

Formal Complaint:

Re: President Alice Hunt

Admissions Director Lisa Seiwert

Chicago Theological Seminary

TEC 355 – Fall 2015 LIVING INTO OUR COMMITMENTS AND EFFECTING SOCIAL CHANGE

Synopsis: I have reason to believe that I was given a D for this first course of mine at CTS due to retribution for filing a complaint against Lisa Seiwert for prejudicial behavior and for further retribution from Dr. Hunt. 45 % of my assignments weren’t graded or I was given no credit (after finishing them. Her behavior was then confirmed and mirrored by Dr. Hunt. You will understandably see how collusion, malice, and negligence was used against me.

I have a very successful anti-corruption blog called WB Truth (google it). Both Dr. Hunt and Lisa Seiwert are aware of this blog. It is extremely direct and it has also been extraordinarily successful. Though I have deep empathy and compassion regarding certain issues (LGBT issues and my gay son) and most people see me as extremely generous, some people (Seiwert and Hunt) see me as highly aggressive and attribute hostility to me. There is an obvious bias against strong, vocal, straight males. Some would call it an “alpha male.” I call them “man haters” just as there are misogynistic males.

Certain people are intimidated by this… especially in a place that sees many groups as marginalized and places aggressive white males as perpetrators (part of the scheme of white privilege which is itself a negative stereotype that CTS takes for granted across the board). I have seen a similar dynamic played out in the Unity church where women were often the ministers and female “boundaries” were vehemently protected. My experience in this course demonstrated BIAS, PREJUDICE, DISCRIMINATION, AND ANTAGONISM. You don’t even have to take my word for it. Just let the numbers and the statistical probabilities bear this out. No one can OBJECTIVELY see what happened to me as not a willful and direct attack on me. It is not so much about the grade as it was the chronic hostility. CTS cannot fulfill its mission with such heavy bias in the Admissions and President’s office.

Similar to a police chief and his deputy doctoring a police report, or a corporate president fabricating a performance evaluation, I was left with no viable course except to shine light on how I was treated. I laid out my concerns on the public CTS Facebook group and was pilloried by many in the community who knew virtually no facts. I am not going to let two “MAN HATERS” run me out of CTS. My fight for fairness will bear the fact that if you ever needed a social advocate – I am the one to call.

Prejudice is most provable in my situation not by perception but by facts, statistics, and probabilities. Examples:

1) It is possible to statistically document that “driving while black” was a real phenomenon that occurred in northern Florida.

2) Review of videos of department store personnel following black customers is observable and documentable in proving bias.

3) Airport security can reveal aggressive steps being taken towards certain profiles.

In the same way I will prove statistically that what happened to me in Tec 355 was not random nor was it due to poor performance. There were exogenous factors that HAD to play a part in the outcome. This can easily be seen in multiplying all of the minimal probabilities together. For instance, if one event happened with a one in 5 chance followed by another outcome that had a 10 % chance – then then cumulative chances are 1/5 times 1/10 or just 2/100 or 2 per cent!

Why was I given 25 consecutive negative comments on my final paper with no grade? 25 poor comments and not one positive? Really? For a 3.94 student?

It is imperative that an observer stick to the numbers and not allow the halo effect occur because of one’s position in CTS. Please follow the numbers (assign likely probabilities as you go). This is the only unbiased way. It may be useful to ask if what happened to me happened to others. If the following occurrences did not happen to others, then there would be just a 1 in 15 chance of it happening to me. What happened to me was willful and deliberate and done with sheer malice.

KEY ASSIGNMENTS RELATED TO THIS COMPLAINT:

The “Making Connections” Assignment is a brief presentation of the “cause” we were to explore for our final project.

- 10% I was falsely told that I didn’t hand in the “Making Connections” Assignment 1. I clearly did. For the record, I submitted my LGBT web site for #1.

- 10% I was falsely told that I didn’t hand in the “Making Connections” Assignment 2. I clearly did. For the record, I submitted my “Custody for Cash” flow chart for #2.

- 5% I fully completed the extra credit exercise and this was never acknowledged. I received zero points. (attached)

- 20% FINAL PAPER (attached)

Ø There were 25 comments made by Dr. Hunt. Every comment (25) was negative.

Ø With my background it’s statistically impossible to write a paper with 25 consecutive “flawed thoughts” without a single positive thought or comment.

Ø This can only be explained by extremely heightened bias by Hunt. It appeared that I became known as the “aggressive straight” male who dared to rock the boat. For this I was cheated and given a D. This was the message.

Ø The comments themselves were rude. “And your point is?” Do you have the qualifications to ask these questions?” Very sarcastic and combative.

For 45 % of the course I received a zero or no grade at all.

SUMMARY OF POINTS (My first class at CTS)

- Never received a letter grade in any assignment the entire semester

- Only feedback received was that my work was acceptable.

- I never received word that major assignments were missing (in reality they were not).

- Was told I failed to turn in “Making Connections” (10%) Assignment 1. FALSE.

- Was told I failed to turn in “Making Connections” (10%) Assignment 2. FALSE.

- Lisa Seiwert performed a google search on me to “verify” whether or not I had been involved in a certain cause (for the Final Project). Involvement in a cause would bar me from using it as a topic. She falsely accused me of being involved in a cause which I had no history in. I found her focused research on me to be insulting… insulting that she would think I am cheating (over something so silly). I told her my thoughts. This is when things started to go downhill.

- During the final class she openly questioned me (and only me) as to whether or not I did the field research required for the project which was humiliating. I literally had done twice the required hours. No one else was questioned in this way despite much confusion over how the oral presentations were to be made.

- I handed in lengthy Extra Credit assignment which was never recognized or graded. I received a zero for this.

- I received no grade for my Final project other than to be told I did poorly. I received a D in the course while falsely accused of not handing in assignments. This is in reference to me, a 3.94 GPA graduate student (I have received all “A”s and one “B” and nothing lower in 19 grad courses… MBA and Theology).

- I believe this final assignment (never received a grade) and others were graded retroactively after I complained about my final grade. How else do all 25 comments become negative? It is not believable that a life-long 3.94 grad student could perform this poorly. Statistically… what are the chances? Bias had to be present for 25 negative comments to occur.

MORE SPECIFIC POINTS:

1) I have taken 19 graduate courses. 12 were part of Lehigh University’s MBA program and seven other theological courses at other schools. My average graduate GPA is approximately 3.94. In this course I received a 1.0 (a D)

2) I also have extensive teach experience. I taught two years of “Organizational Behavior and Management” at Lehigh University. I taught 10^th grade Algebra II and Geometry at a prep school for three years. I have been on either the teaching or student “end” of over 100 courses since my Undergraduate days at Wake Forest University. This is the worst run course I have ever been part of.

3) I did not receive a single grade on any assignment in TEC 355 until the course was almost a month over. I received a “D” on or about January 16, 2016.

Below is the only feedback received. I had completed the assignments she is referring to.

From Dr. Hunt: Mark, Your instructors for your Living our Commitments course met this week to evaluate our students progress. We determined that you are doing an acceptable job in the course. We want to encourage you to engage in more and deeper self-reflection. You have also not turned in some important assignments (WRONG!!!) In Week 6, you did not complete the checklist post and you did not complete the Speak Out assignment. And you did not turn in your Week 7 Making Connections assignment. We also want you to make sure you are engaging ALL the assigned material for each week in your posts. AH

4) During the semester many assignments were lost. I had to re-submit assignments on at least four occasions.

5) I did the extra credit paper which included the summary of three books. I never received credit for this. I can prove I sent it. I will also attach it to the e mail. (See here the E Mail I sent: Mark Robbins <markrobbins56@yahoo.com> To Lisa Seiwert Alice Hunt Damond Jackson 12/12/15 at 12:08 AM re: Extra Credit

See attachment for Extra Credit completed assignment

6) I was told that I missed two “Making Connections” assignments. This is false. These assignments were essentially to pick a “cause” and to produce a power point or a web site etc. I can prove that I did both parts.

“Making Connections # 1 Assignment: The first submission I supplied an LGBT web site I put together (LGBTWOW.COM).

E Mail from HUNT I received 13 days after my submission which negated my topic. How can they negate every single topic in this realm of LGBT? This is ridiculous. They take 13 days to tell me… when the next deadline is looming… and they give me a zero? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Monday, October 26, 2015 9:12 PM From: Hunt /Seiwert

Mark,

Upon further consideration, we would like for you to focus your final project reflection in a different area. You'll note the instructions in the syllabus:

Your final project will be a reflection on your participation in a movement in your area. You should choose a movement with which to engage and meet with Dr. Hunt via skype, email or phone prior to October 13 to get approval. The movement needs to be something already taking place in your community and something you have not yet experienced or joined. You could join a community organizing group, participate in a movement associated with a particular cause, or take part in a specific action planned in your community.

The project you have suggested does not meet the parameters set forth. Please find a movement already in place in your community and something you are not already a part of. Additionally, because you are already creating this resource for LGBTQ individuals and allies, we would ask that your final project center in a justice issue not focused on the LGBTQ community.

We look forward to hearing your new context and ask that you have it submitted to us by November 1. If you need help brainstorming ideas, any one of us is willing to work with you.

Sincerely, Alice Hunt

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

From: Alice W Hunt

Mark, I am having second thoughts on this. Let me confer with my colleagues and one of us will get back with you. Thanks, AH 10/26/2015

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

Sent Items 10/13/2015 (13 days before an answer !!!) Tues, Oct 13, 2015 11:28 PM

From: Mark Robbins

I have started and would like to continue a very robust and and detailed “one stop shop” for LGBT information. It is called LGBTwow.com The web site includes how scripture supports gays, how the science supports gays, a history of homosexuality, and the fierce opponents and their weapons to tear down the rights of LGBT’s.

7) As far as the first assignment, it appeared the balance of the class missed it because Dr. Hunt had to make an announcement during our Webinar. The assignment was buried in a syllabus (page 13 of 91.) This was confusing because the class was following an outline separate from the syllabus which any reasonable person thought contained the same information as the syllabus. In any event, this assignment dovetailed into the second assignment so re-doing it seemed redundant. I have never in my life seen a 91 page syllabus. See attached.

“Making Connections # 2 Assignment: I was hampered by the 13 days of wrangling over the topic. THEY SHOULD HAVE TOLD ME TO REROACTIVELY REDO ASSIGNMENT #1. I CLEARLY DID THE ASSIGNGMENT – THEY JUST REFUTED THE TOPIC. Lisa Seiwert NEXT performed a google search on me to “verify” whether or not I had been involved in a certain cause (for the Final Project). I chose “Custody for Cash” as it was a national movement looking at who “system paid” for taking children from parents. Seiwert falsely accused me of being involved in a cause which I had no history in. I found her research on me to be insulting. It was insulting that she would think I would cheat over something so silly. … insulting that she would think I am cheating (over something so silly). I told her my thoughts. This is when things started to go downhill.

E Mails E mail from me to Seiwert to me on November On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:42 PM…. Robbins <markrobbins56@yahoo.com> wrote:

E mail from me to Seiwert: I find it very insulting that you feel the need to research me as though am running a big lie on CTS. I dont understand where you are coming from.

Thank You Mark

Hi Lisa

I would like to work a group called Voices (1150 members) which is a group that helps poor families who are victimized by "Children and Youth" services. CUSTODY FOR CASH also exploits the poor. See my Powerpoint diagram. This diagram has already been posted in the "Voices" Facebook page. The leaders of this movement are eager to work with me in fighting the corruption. There you see it. How is this a zero?

AND HOW IS THIS NOT A LEGITIMATE CAUSE?

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

See TV Coverage of Guardian Ad Litem sentenced to jail (if people are going to jail and making the news… it is certainly a legitimate cause). What is noteworthy is that other students chose food banks or soup kitchens. What makes illegally taking kids less of a cause? Or less interesting?

TV: http://wnep.com/2014/04/16/family-court-lawyer-sentenced-to-prison/

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

Seiwert writes above that “my research shows that you have been involved in this cause in your area. I saw your name in Occupy for Justice.” Does that sound like “Custody for Cash” to you? What the HECK is she talking about?

E mail from me to Seiwert: I find it very insulting that you feel the need to research me as though am running a big lie on CTS. I dont understand where you are coming from.

Thank You Mark

Even though I clearly submitted the assignment and the “cause” was sanctioned by Seiwert… I received a zero grade for this “Making Connections 2” as well as zero for “Making Connections 1” when I submitted my web site LGBTWOW.COM which opened the doors to thousands of areas. Instead they

a) Shut the door on me

b) Never asked that I resubmit something in its place

c) Gave me a zero grade.

8) I was told that I was a couple days late on one small assignment

Alice W Hunt [huntctspresident@gmail.com]

Robbins, Mark‎; Mark Robbins ‎[markrobbins56@yahoo.com]‎‎; Sunday, Nov 15, 2015 2:05 PM

Mark, The Coaching #5 journal was due on the 13th. I do not have your journal in my inbox. AH

Then why wasn’t I told that I was missing two major assignments until a month after the semester (neither of which were missing)? I think it is obvious that that were unethically setting me up to fail.

9) Why were final grades submitted at least a week late?

10) I was told ONCE that I was doing an acceptable job in the course. Another student I spoke to said he had three such progress updates. Why the discrepancy? Again, after I complained about Lisa Seiwert the failure to address me can fairly be seen as retribution.

11) I was never given a grade on my final project. I was told that I did poorly. All 25 comments were negative. Her is a sample (my notes in italics).

- and your point?

- ?

- I do not understand your qualifications that allow you to participate in this way (This is just plain crazy talk… our qualifications to interview someone was never brought up. This makes no sense at all.)

- ?

- This is not a movement – as we indicated in several email interactions with you. It is more like you providing some kind of service. (The movement against kids being taken from their homes unlawfully is clearly a movement across the country. There are books and videos etc.. SHE IS DELBERATELY BEING ANATOGONISTIC. Why did they OK the project? THIS IS WHAT PREJUDICE AND BIAS LOOK LIKE !! Note that she did in fact concede that I did the “Making Connections” above in red.

- You did not respond to the prompt to identify your feelings and thoughts as they relate to your personal identity and relationships. Nor did you explore why you responded the way you did.

- Your response lacks depth and attention.

- This barely scratches the surface and is not a theological reflection.

- this is not the action of a participant of a movement.

- Mark – I am concerned that you are not yet qualified for this kind of work.

- This is not the full reflection I would expect from a graduate student.

- Mark – I long to see you practice self-reflection and humility of spirit. (Now she is lecturing me).

- I would wish for deeper reflection here. (I hope you realize my paper was 25 pages! She is antagonizing me on and on and on…) etc…….

12) I was given a “C” for participation despite never missing a class and being one of the more vocal contributors. I can almost guarantee that my grades were submitted retroactively to give me a poor grade. Hunt was protecting Seiwert and sending her own message. Recall:

The only feedback was that I was doing an acceptable job

I never got credit for the extra credit

I was told that I missed an important assignment which I completed

I never received a grade on the final project

13) My complaint filed against Seiwert the same day I filed my final project.

I am not happy with the way I was treated by Lisa Seiwert and wonder if others were treated the same way. On Tuesday I was giving my oral presentation and I was interrupted by Ms. Seiwert and questioned before the class as to whether or not I had "put in the four hour requirement." This was humiliating. I was the only one questioned in this fashion. Dr. Hunt was present.

The fact is I put in at least ten hours travelling to court and meeting with "victims" in their home and meeting kids. I carry a 3.91 GPA coming into CTS and I earned a 4.0 in my MBA program at Lehigh University. I actually completed the EXTRA CREDIT. Am I prone to cheating and short cuts? Why am I being targeted? Bias. That is why. I will get to this in a minute.

No one else was challenged on their commitment nor were they spoken rudely to. This was done so despite the fact that many others did not do the assignment in the "correct way" which was misleading to begin with. We were not instructed that the oral work was to mirror our written work. Quite frankly, I was just trying to make my presentation educational and entertaining. A case can easily be made that I was the most prepared.

The process of coming up with a topic felt like harassment. I chose a “movement” or cause in my area” that fulfilled all the requirements. I chose “Custody for Cash” which, if you knew my area, would know is a huge movement based on the “Kids for Cash” scandal that made international headlines (see Appendix B in my paper).

I, like many other students, were confused about the Final Project instructions as there were essentially two syllabi. The Final Requirement was on page 9 of 45 in one of them (my computer). Kind of hard to find. I believe most people would think to find the Final Project instructions near the end of the syllabus.

After some initial confusion, I had no issue with choosing a topic that I was not involved with. In fact, I looked forward to it. After choosing “Custody for Cash,” I felt violated when Lisa Seiwert performed a google search on me and told me the project I picked represented ground already covered by me. This was simply not the case. See two attachments. I felt like I was being accused of cheating.

I expressed to her how I felt insulted. I also followed up with an E mail and a voice mail asking her to talk to me if there were differences between us. Based on her accusation last Tuesday (that I hadn’t put in the 4 hours), she apparently still has issues with me.

My concern is that Ms. Seiwert has a bias against me. More specifically, a bias against strong men such as myself. If one were to read my blog one would know I am not one to mince words or and I often state strong opinions (Google “WB Truth”).

I agree with the stance CTS takes on almost every issue. But one can be inured to the dignity of strong white males when they are only associated with white privilege. I have seen “man hating” (I am not suggesting Ms. Seiwert “hates” me) played out in a Unity church I was belonged to and a “Victims’ Resource Center” that I once volunteered for. It can be very real. As real as any other discrimination.

I believe in statistics. If I was:
(1) The only one called out on Tuesday (which I was)
(2) The only one who had a google search done on them to see if they “are following the rules.”
… then there is bias.

Given 15 students… the chances would be 99.55 % (1 – 1/15 x 1/15). Though this may seem very technical… the feeling of “who else gets treated this way” is very real. It was very upsetting to me and “took the wind out of my sail.” Exactly the way those who are biased against feel.

Is this a bias at CTS? It seems to me the answer is yes. It is a possibility. But I won’t venture into the area of opinion because I don’t know everyone and the number of strong white males. I felt that this issue is very important to bring up in that Ms. Seiwert is on the front lines of who is accepted (as Admissions Director). I believe an examination is in order.

15) Lisa Seiwert’s antagonism towards me carried into the final class (Webinar). After nearly finishing my oral presentation she interrupted and challenged me on whether or not I did the field research. This was humiliating as I had to defend myself in front of the class. She challenged no one else. If I was the only black student no one would think this was by chance… so it shouldn’t be with me.

16) Final Notes from Dr Hunt around 01/16/16… a big piece of fiction.

Dear Mark,

I write to inform you that you earned a D in our Living Our Commitments class. Several factors contributed to your final grade. You did not turn in either Making Connections assignment (one due October 22^nd about which I reminded you by email and the other due November 11^th. We gave repeated reminders about these during our WebEx sessions.) You earned full credit for the Wall of History assignment and the I Am Poem assignment – each worth 5% of your total grade. You earned full credit for the Coaching assignments totaling 10% of your total grade. You earned a C for the Engagement/Participation requirement which was worth 30% of your total grade. (Please see the syllabus for the details about that requirement.) You earned an A- on the Personal Reflection assignment which was worth 10% of your total grade. You did quite poorly on your Final Project. I have attached the project with my evaluative notes. So, your final grade in the course was particularly poorly affected by your lack of completing the Making Connections requirement and by your inadequate job on the Final Project. I want to encourage you, as I did in your progress report in November, to engage in more and deeper self-reflection. (That is a journey for us all.)

Please make others aware of this post... especially trustees. Give them this link: http://wbtruth.blogspot.com/2016/02/leave-kids-out-of-it.html

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Voting Trustees

Reza Aslan

Professor, UC Riverside
Ph.D., M.F.A., M.T.S.

Traci Blackmon

Pastor, Christ the King United Church of Christ
M.Div., B.S.

Cate Brady

Consultant, Business Startups Studio Projects LLC
M.S., B.S.

Brian Clarke

Managing Partner, Kensington International
M.S., B.S.

Lillian Daniel

Pastor, First Congregational Church, Glen Ellyn, IL
D.Min., M.Div., A.B.

William Evers

Senior Director-Retired, Harley-Davidson Motor Company
M.B.A, B.A.

Sharon Watson Fluker

Consultant, Center for Public Leadership, Kennedy School of
Government and Senior Adviser, Salzburg Global Seminar (Mellon Fellow Community Initiative)
Ph.D., M.S., B.S.