CA CRD Intake

On May 31, 2024, I filed a complaint against the American Academy of Religion (AAR) with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD). After some confusion as to coverage, I was interviewed on August 28. Below is an abridged video, but the transcript below it covers the entire interview. Scroll all the way down for the unedited video, with captions.

Edited Transcript:

CRD: This is being filed against the American Academy of Religion?

LMI: That's correct.

CRD: Do you have location that you visited? I kind of looked up and it looks like they're kind of everywhere so I just wonder if you went a location, if you talk on the phone; how did you interact with the company?

LMI: By email. They're coming to San Diego in November for their big annual event.

CRD: Okay so why don't you just tell me tell me what happened.

LMI: I'm a an academic and I submitted some papers for their big meeting and they're coming to San Diego. I don't submit every year, I've been an independent scholar for I don't know how long. I've been a member since, I want to stay 2010. They're coming to San Diego, which is the second largest military community in the Western Hemisphere. I caught wind that the Presidential Theme, around which they structure, is “Violence, Nonviolence, and the Margin.” I'm a combat veteran, I went to Iraq in 2004, I was involved in peace activism from 2006 until the present day, and I have two master's degrees. I'm uniquely qualified to speak to violence, nonviolence, and the margins especially in religion. One of my papers even addressed it directly. One of the papers I submitted was titled “A New Israel Indeed: the Marginalization of Military Communities from Zebulon and Naphtali to Korea and Vietnam.” I submitted four different papers, all of them were rejected. That was a little surprising because of where they're holding their gathering, what the presidential theme, is and what my qualifications are.

CRD: Say again, what was the reason that… did they give a reason?

LMI: No. It's unique in that each each paper is submitted to a Program Unit. Each Program Unit is independently responsible for reviewing these submissions. When all four of them got rejected, I emailed the Executive Director and the the relevant staff people saying ‘um… this is weird because I spent six years in the Army, a year in combat (or more), and you want to talk about violence, nonviolence, and you are literally marginalizing military voices while you want to meet in a city of over 200,000 military service members dependents and veterans.’ They invited me to contact the program chairs themselves, but they weren't really… When the papers were rejected I looked into their diversity and inclusion stuff and I discovered that military and veteran status is specifically excluded from every aspect of their organization. They have a non-discrimination statement in their bylaws that I pointed out omits “military and veteran status.” They have what are called Status Committees to assist up and coming academics like women, gender minorities, racial minorities. There's no status committee for veterans, and there never has been to my knowledge.

I asked for a review of the submission procedures because if the program units chose to go with other papers that had less to do with, or were less qualified to speak directly on, the theme, then that's their problem. I'm not going to pick a fight with the people who may be the bias is coming from. So I sent them a series of emails to this effect and they basically said F* off, you're a bully and you're making threats. I was born and raised in California, in Tustin in Orange County, and I was really pleased to discover that California protects veterans under Section 12920 and has for about 10 years. So that's what happened.

CRD: Okay so your papers were rejected. You didn't find a way to get them submitted again?

LMI: That's correct, yeah they won't they won't reconsider as far as I know.

CRD: And when is the San Diego event taking place?

LMI: In November.

CRD: So you feel like your your veteran status is being discriminated because you have that that background and everything, and yet your submissions were rejected? And when you reached out about it they basically blew you off right?

LMI: I don't believe it's a feeling. I believe it's a fact that they specifically exclude a protected class. Subsection B of [Cal. Gov. Code] 12940 specifically prohibits labor organizations from making protected classes second class citizens or second class members. Subsection K specifically requires that reasonable steps be taken to prevent discrimination. I contend they are in violation of both [Cal. Gov. Code § 12940] Subsection b, as in bravo, and [Cal. Gov. Code § 12940] Subsection k, as in kilo.

CRD: Okay do you have… you don't have any idea that at this point who was selected?

LMI: I think they've published the program and nothing really stood out. I also asked in my email that they take a blind poll of their members, offering for veterans and military members to self-identify. A lot of veterans don't self-identify because of anti-military bias and discrimination. But if [AAR] did it blind, maybe they would have an understanding of how big this problem is but they chose to blow me off.

CRD: Do you have the name of the person? What's the name of, or what… how did you submit your four papers, was it sent to like a general email or is there a person attached to it?

LMI: There's a system they call Papers. All the Program Units put in their call and all the applicants submit through there. It's supposed to be blind, but one of the papers, to "the Contextualized Biblical Interpretation [Program Unit], they asked for what context from which one engages the Bible. They ask you to identify your own context, so in that [proposal] I told them I am a combat veteran of Iraq. Everything else is supposed to be blind. It's complicated by the fact that, for one of the program units, one of the co-chairs who went to school with me at Duke University. I had to file a federal investigation against Duke for similar matters back in 2017, so that's another reason I'm not about to contact the program chairs directly. Because that's their responsibility, not mine.

CRD: Okay so in one of the is only in one of the papers you identified that you were a veteran?

LMI: Correct.

CRD: Okay and then what is your remedy in this what are you looking for

LMI: I've told them if they don't want to abide by California's civil rights laws they can take their business elsewhere. I'm seeking an injunction to bar them bar them from doing business in the state until they're ready to abide by our laws.

CRD: Okay and are you willing to mediate if they wanted to discuss the matter outside of court?

LMI: Absolutely.

CRD: Okay.

LMI: As I said, they have not indicated they're interested in doing anything then bickering about the fact that they're non-compliant and they don't like that I'm pointing it out.

CRD: Okay so do you have a name of anyone that you've had contact with in this process

LMI: Claudia Shippert, the Executive Director.

CRD: Okay and what did you say she was on… sorry, Executive Director. Okay and you spoke with her via email or over the phone?

LMI: I did speak with her by email. I may have spoken with a random staff person over the phone early on, but I don't I don't know for sure. I think I would have called first.

CRD: And what day did you submit these? Did you submit them, what day did you submit the papers, May 3?

LMI: Oh. I'd have to look. I don't know if I recorded the day that I did them.

CRD: okay uh what was May 31st was that when you got the denial?

LMI: No, May 31st when I submitted to you, to CRD.

CRD: Oh, yes okay. Yeah, how far before that you got the denial or submitted them; any kind of timeline?

LMI: I could possibly find out on their Papers system, let me see if I can pull that up. Dang, it doesn't say what day they were rejected. I got an email for one of the four, but the rest I'm not sure. Yeah, I don't know.

CRD: Okay, after we're done here, I can… any of the documentation you have, if you can email it to me, that you feel is relevant to the matter, and then I can upload it into the case. So that maybe if in there we can kind of pull from that information

LMI: Sure. One of the rejections I got was in March, that was probably the first one. But I don't know when I submitted, not specifically… wait no they were submitted on March 8, “Your proposal was submitted.” March 8th.

CRD: Of this year, right?

LMI: Right, yes.

CRD: Okay, and then so it wasn't very long before they were rejected.

LMI: March 27th. At least one of them was rejected, Liberation Theologies… Yeah so inside 30 days

CRD: Is the one rejected the one where you identified as military?

LMI: I don't know.

CRD: Okay I wasn't sure if it had the explanation for each paper and or you know that it was rejected; paper one, paper two.

LMI: I imagine, playing Devil's Advocate, they may claim ‘look, there's no way to know.’ My contention is subsection B and subsection K don't require self-identification. Right? [AAR] exclude “military and veteran” from anything and everything that has to do with diversity, as far as I can tell, from their entire organization.

CRD: As far as not listing them as a protected…

LMI: Correct, member, second class “citizen”, second class “member.” I think the standard is preponderance of evidence; they're coming to a community of 200,000 military people, and they don't want to hear from military people on violence and non violence? Which is insulting because they're literally silencing and marginalizing the same community that they claim to be coming to. So I feel like, “don't come if you don't want to talk to military families.” If you're going to violate California law, there's plenty of other states that don't protect soldiers and veterans. Go there.

CRD: now when you said that you they did have the the list or the group for the for the show that they're doing in San Diego did any of those people on the list identify as being a veteran?

LMI: Not that I know of.

CRD: Anywhere on that? It's probably not… Alright so what I'll do is I'm going to go ahead and build a chronology with what I have. I might have some additional questions as I do that. If I do I'll reach out to you via email. If you have anything you want to send over you can.

LMI: How do I do that?

CRD: I'm sorry?

LMI: How do I do that? I saw the upload option on the CCRS [California Civil Rights System]?

CRD: Yeah on the CCRS; you can either upload it through CCRS or you can attach it to an email and send it to me. All of our communication is uploaded, so it upload it for you as well, in the case, and then I can access it as we go.

LMI: Okay.

⏱️ 15:00

CRD: Alright I don't think I have any other questions. Do you have any questions for me?

LMI: Were you aware that “military and veteran status” was a protected class in California?

CRD: Yes, and I saw your note that it wasn't listed on our form, which is very done like this for a veteran against another agency and I know that we took it and everything, so I was surprised. But what it is I think they're updating our forms because we added some more protected bases, so I think that update for some reason, the one that we're using right now, doesn't. But I looked even physically and it doesn't list military even though it should. So I did make that aware to a supervisor, yeah. So not sure why. It's on the employment form, but on this form, for whatever reason, it's not listed. But it is protected.

LMI: I want to state from the get-go that that undermines my trust in the California Civil Rights Division across the board. The CRD is not far from the AAR. If I think something's happened but I don't see my own identity, my own protected class, on a paper, I second guess whether I'm actually protected. I had to double check; “military and veteran status” was added in 2013 by [Assembly Bill] 556. It's been on the books for 10 years! I don't understand how or why any organization that… These laws have been here for a while! I still feel like a second class citizen even when I'm reporting to you! I did six years in the military…

CRD: Yeah, that shouldn't be the case

LMI: “That shouldn't be the case,” is that what you said?

CRD: Right, that's what I said; it shouldn't be the case. That's correct, you should not feel that way. That's not… Our job is not to make you feel inferior for military status. So like I said, I will get this stuff drafted and then if you have anything you want to send me you can. Then what'll happen is, if we can take the case which I feel pretty confident we can, then I'll send you a complaint. It'll come from Adobe and you'll just look it over, make sure everything looks accurate as far as dates. Then sign it, send it back to me, and then we'll serve it on the [American] Academy [of Religion]. From that point they have 60 to 90 days to respond…

LMI: Okay let me write that down. How long does it take to get the complaint?

CRD: Usually like a couple of days. It depends on a variety of things, but yeah it should be maybe by a week. Then once we serve them, like I said we'll serve them the complaint, and then they have 60 to 90 days to respond. From that point, once I get their response I'll reach back out to you and just kind of say ‘this was their stance on what they said.’ We can talk about it, I might have some additional questions for you, and then after that we'll start interviewing. I'll start interviewing people and requesting documentation.

LMI: Am I barred in any way from speaking about this publicly or advocating for myself publicly?

CRD: The only thing you would potentially be barred from doing is suing them in Civil Court while we're investigating. That's not allowed. If that were to happen then we would close our case and let you move forward.

LMI: So if I'm trying to create change by applying pressure, some of that pressure might include speaking and writing about this online. That's not prohibited?

CRD: No.

LMI: Okay.

CRD: If you were to contact them directly and tell them that you filed against them, you're allowed. The only thing you can't do is you can't monetarily benefit from it in two different ways.

LMI: Oh, okay.

CRD: That's the big catch for us. If we're investigating something, and then you go outside and settle the matter on your own, that's not right.

LMI: okay I well I should say one resolution could be, I don't know I'm not going to get on the program units, but clearly they need training in this like this is a ripe opportunity to come to San Diego and grapple with the fact that this is this is ingrained in the organization. I don't know what that looks like I'm not a big speaker or anything but like somebody behind me should not be made to feel the same way, and I don't have a whole lot of faith in… yeah. If they [AAR] do nothing, I will ask the CRD ‘I don't think they should be doing business in California.’ I don't know if that's something that CRD can do on its own, but that's what I'm pushing for because I want them to change. If them uprooting from, I don't know how many thousands of people go to this event, I'll do it. Because I'm sick and tired of like being squandered off under the carpet somewhere. I said that because… Okay, yeah. I think I understand. I guess I also want to just state out loud that this is one way of a few you that I'm trying to pressure a big organization to do better by my community. I want to make sure I'm not I'm not shooting myself in the foot in some other way. But as long as I don't benefit or I don't file in Civil Court, CRD is kind of hands off with me.

⏱️ 21:00

CRD: Obviously you can't cause any harm or anything, you know, to them. But obviously you know that as far as speaking about it, it's not confidential. I mean I wouldn't give specifics when we get further into the process you know things like that, but no there's no there's no bar from you speaking on it or anything to that.

LMI: okay sounds good I think I understand then. Let's just pretend that they take a full 90 days, they're going to go they could go beyond November.

CRD: I have a year from the day you sign the complaint to investigate.

LMI: Oh okay.

CRD: And I have the legal legal recourse to require that people do certain things, to the best of my ability as an investigator, within that year

LMI: okay

CRD: so if they want to drag their feet until the 90day mark they can I mean they they have that ability but it will just rush the rest of the process because they will know that I have to still do those things

LMI: okay okay all right I think I understand that's that's helpful

CRD: Alright if there's nothing else then, like I said, I'll be in touch. You can always reach me on my email. you've already seen my email. It has my phone number, that is my direct line, you can always call. I don't always answer, I'm usually on the phone, but I will call you back if you leave a message.

LMI: Okay I appreciate it.

CRD: If there's no other questions, then have a good rest of your day.

LMI: Alright, thank you. I appreciate it.

CRD: You're welcome.