20190319 American Legion HQ

On March 19, 2019 I was in the American Legion DC Headquarters speaking with Larry Lohman, their Assistant Director of Legislative Affairs. When I brought up my two federal investigations against Duke University, he got very agitated and called building security. That’s when I began to record the following audio.

AI Generated Transcript

  📍 📍 We left off at jail. Right. EEOC.

But that's, that's a very long answer to get to where

you, I haven't even finished

it. Discriminate. Yeah. But that's, that's not, so I'm asking, so I'm asking how are you discriminated as a veteran? I'm asking your personal story. How are you discriminated as a veteran? And if it starts with John F.

Kennedy, I'm guessing that's a long way down the pipe.

Okay. You personally? Yes. Would you like me to finish?

No, I'd like you to answer the question.

Okay. If you don't want me to finish, then I, I'm

not asking you to finish. I'm asking you to answer my question.

Yes.

You were discriminated as a veteran. How were you discriminated as a veteran?

Are you aware of the word under utilization is defined by the EEOC

under utilization as in it's not the, the equal opportunity. What, what, what, what, what's your, that's a yes

or no. It's just a yes or no. The,

the, the definition is it as defined?

Yes. What the, okay, under utilization is defined by the EEOC as a, a member of a class whose qualifications are downplayed, um, denied, ignored, minimized, erased, right?

Sure. A veteran is what you're saying is, should be the protected class. That's what you're saying? I

have not said that.

And what are you, okay,

so that's under utilization. Mm-hmm. In February of 2016. Well, throughout 2016, it happened in the spring semester of 2016. Um, I had two master's degrees. I had already applied to the PhD program, gotten interviewed by Duke, which was a big step in my first round, second round.

I can only apply to Duke because my wife, her job required that we remained in state. There's two funded programs, UNC and Duke, UNC just didn't seem like good fit. I talked to my people, didn't, I didn't even apply because it didn't seem a good, like good fit. The Duke program director, uh, his name is Wagner.

Call him Wagner's last name. He helped me think through what my application could do to improve, which I did after talking with him. Fast forward through that after my face was put on a magazine with a readership of a quarter of a million, with I could I have it somewhere with a title war torn used without my permission.

Um, without any permission as to whether or not they could use my post-traumatic stress diagnosis to be put on a cover for an emotional pi. Right. Fair. Completely. That same semester is when I was being considered now and related, but unrelated. I had started teaching and I had been given a teaching assignments in, in the evening with half a number of students.

The registrar who hired me would tell you, well, you got, half the students got paid the same. You should be happy. Are you aware of under utilization how you should be happy with less work? Well, it's typical line, right? I'm doing you a favor. You need special help. Here is this handout. The registrar did not read my resume, was not aware that I already had three years of teaching education.

Two master's degrees. I published academic work. Somehow I got put in this tiny little teaching section. In an evening slot. Now, that would've been fine. I love teaching. My parents are both teachers. One of my grandparents is a teacher, but I had a baby on the way. I could not take another evening class, but because I went through the program with the registrar and she has, she had a reputation for being vindictive.

I didn't want to tell her, look, I cannot take your handout. I can't take an evening class because I, that's bedtime. No other evening classes had ever existed that I knew of as a student before then. And when I brought that to my dean, that set off a series of events that eventually then there was closed door meetings about what we should do for veterans by some members of the, of the staff at the divinity school there.

They told me that they had asked veterans about what to do, and I contacted those veterans. They said they were never invited to this meeting. Now that is just the late that moment. History at at Duke, specifically that I've outlined elsewhere.

Mm-hmm. Did you ever try to sue Duke to enforce anything? I don't

have any.

The money to the I've, I've looked for attorneys here in dc, Vietnam, veterans were practicing civil rights employment law here in dc. Have never heard of Vera. Now, the hate crime stuff does not apply to me. I've never been attacked. Other people, maybe they have, but Vera specifically, I learned about that because I asked my dean.

The registrar, find out. Lo and behold, I didn't get invited back in the midst. In response to that, I had Duke start an internal investigation.

Just outta curiosity, what has counsel told you when you've tried to get lawyers to represent you? What, like what? They haven't, so you haven't sought counsel?

I have,

but what have they?

So reason Nobody will

take it. Nobody. Nobody knows this area of law that they'll tell you they, no, they're too busy. They're not familiar with the area of law. Okay. So as a result of, of that, I started this thing internally at Duke. I later, and this is just to answer the PhD question, they uncovered, they had, they interviewed the program director, same guy who said, this is how you can improve your program.

Same guy who interviewed me the year before, he now all of a sudden said, after this war torn bullshit, which I'd love to litigate, but again, I don't know why, nobody knows how to do it. Um, he's, he told Duke. He's not equipped to do doctoral research in EEOC language that is under utilization, but that's also, uh, the, the essential job function.

I would've, I'll, I'm, I'll be done very, very soon. So

back, back up. The last, last two sentences you said, what was that part again? The under utilization. That what, what is under utilization?

Sequestering someone off as though they can't handle the workload. Okay.

So you're being dis you, you believe you're being discriminated against as like a broken

I did.

Yeah. The, so in that internal thing that same program director said can't do. He's not equipped now in EEOC language, if as long as I'm capable of doing the essential job function and I'm qualified, I should be considered, you know, equally. Right. And knowing that they have affirmative action policy and knowing, 'cause I spoke to the dean, that veterans in my field theology, there's a lack of veterans and theology.

That's a problem Anyway. I knew that I would've, I was competitive applicant. The essential job function for a PhD application, according to the accredit aiding agency is intellectual capacity. So the I, the substance of what was stated was that Logan, who I know as a veteran, who I know as PTSD, who I know is an advocate for vets, he lacks the intellectual capacity to do the PhD research.

Okay, now that's aside. I, I did that. I, I-I-E-E-O-C got involved only because I'm disabled and I fall under a DA. So how many

people get turned down for intellectual capacity or reasons from this program? Or is that, is that your letter says that you were intellectual?

No, it was invest, it was a report that was later provided to me.

The report from the college Duke? Uh, yes. So what, what's the what? So you applied for admission. They denied your admission. Okay. And then they, you, they subsequently followed up with this report that was based off of the request of yours or the investigation they did, or what, what, where did they come to this determination that you were intellectually capable?

Uh, well, I mean, their answer to that is going to be different, but the um, uh. Uh, I'm sorry, you asked a specific question. I forgot. So

they, you applied for admission?

Yeah.

They sent you a regular denial letter. Oh,

no, they didn't. That was the other thing. It looked like my application had been treated differently.

I never received a rejection letter.

Okay. So what, so there's a normal process, I'm assuming, an application process that you go through. So they went through that and so, um, I'm sure there's other, or like what's their acceptance rate for candidates for this? Hello? It's low. Mm-hmm. Okay.

But I'm, this is about the underlying factors that allowed that to happen.

Which again, back to suicide prevention and social

attitudes. But I'm asking you, did they ever say that it was because you were a veteran? Did they ever say it was because of your PTSD? Did they ever say it was for anything that was connected to, it's not

required usually by EEOC and other investigations?

Well, no. I mean, someone, they'd

be very, but I'm just, I'm, I'm curious how you. Get to the conclusion that it had something to do with your veteran status or PTSD? Uh, or, or I guess how preponderance of the evidence, how would you be protected by this class and how you would

Oh, I already was, that's the thing that, that's bera, like they have, they have a, they're below the hiring benchmark, but they,

they wouldn't be inclined, like there's a very low acceptance rate.

They don't have to let every single veteran in that applies.

Yeah. We're what he's saying. It's very. It's murky water because Right. I'm not What? What? Yeah. What? But even with the relevance, if you, if you feel you've been, if you were discriminated against, it's relevant, but the fact that it's such an exclusive school, it's gonna make that very different.

Right.

I'm not here to talk about dupe. I'm here to talk about the law. If we changed

the law, would you think you'd be, you, you would, you, you feel you'd, if we changed the law, if the law as it apply, if it applies as you see it, how would it protect you, is my question?

I, I don't think that it necessarily, in and of itself would

Okay.

Back to the, the 1996. It's about society's attitudes and beliefs and how they act on them. So the same society that was like, well, Logan can't do PhD research is the same society that said, well, Logan's war torn. I mean, this is all like, got your six hazardous stuff. You're an asset or a liability.

Oh, you're absolutely an asset.

I mean, but you can, no, I don't, I don't think those are, I think they're two separate determinations, whether or not you're accepted to a PhD kid. I mean, but I, I mean there's, I, I'm just curious why they're, if they're basing it off something veteran. I mean, that's something that I think honestly. We, I'm just, I'm just curious how the law would protect, like applies or changes to the situation and then your personal situation.

Science, you're just, your personal situation doesn't apply to why you're advocating to the law.

Uh, it's informed by it, but no. Okay. My story is, yeah, start asking questions that led me to all these folds. So who,

who would this law

protect? Veterans?

Yeah.

Well.

Keep, keep in mind we need, it's easy to understand language are constituents.

I, I just need, so by eliminating the five year language that you want to, what, who, so just a veteran forever is protected and then what they go into like a class of protective, like minorities.

I think that's a separate consideration. I think that has to do with judiciary. No, I don't know. I know that I've been told creating a protected class is its own thing and that I'd have to go through judiciary.

That's all I know.

Well, you couldn't go through judiciary. Protecting protected class is typically goes through legislation. I mean, laws come, laws don't come from courts. Laws come from,

right. I mean, uh, currently service members and some veterans are protected from hate crimes. Why? Every veteran, every member of the military, current and past.

He is not protected, does not fulfill the intent of the law.

Well, the intent of the law, I think, was to protect people that were recently discharged to protect them as there's a perception of active duty, I think. I think especially when Vietnam veterans came back, you know, there were people that called them, particularly Vietnam veterans

are not protected.

They're past five years.

Right. They're not the active duty that there, there's intent of the law. When I created it, if you look at the legislative history, what the reason they came up with the law was because there's a stigma attached serving in Vietnam. And those are degrees. Not

that that's, so, HCPA was passed under the NDAA that wasn't like a law in the same sense.

It was passed in 2009.

So 2000. So this is the new one that says that we're, okay. So do you have any of the idea of legislative history? Of what the, what, how this came about or what they put into it?

Ra no, I, I'm still researching the re the, not the reports.

Okay. So it came out in NDA 2009 and so. Do you know what they put into?

So what, there's a five year time limit that when you exit active duty, so you're contending that we should eliminate the five year time limit so that all veterans entered the protected class.

So all veterans are protected by HCPA.

Okay. And what will that

is? Do you have any sort of, that shows there's a discrimination pattern for veterans after five years that would

require that veterans report? It Statistically, veterans are less likely to report than the wider civilian population. So the matter of prevalence is gonna be even harder to establish. I don't have it.

I haven't researched it. I think it's ha, it, it's materially self-evidently. Okay. Effed up that some vets, most vets are excluded from this statute. Not to speak of RA as a whole. I

think realistically we probably supportive of legislation, but generally we support things that increase the ability. For veterans, you know, especially with ones of stigmas attached.

So I think we would generally be supportive, but we need information that's a little bit, you know, more worked out legislative history things for this. I mean, it's also something we're willing to work on, but also, um. And inclined to, I, I don't know, like maybe it's not Josh's area because it, it's not, doesn't seem like the legislation itself is directly attached to t suicide.

Right? Yeah.

It seems, um, because it is a lot more broad. I mean, you're, it is all like, it's not a health issue, it's just sort of a general, it's a veteran, like a

civil rights issue.

Exactly. Exactly.

So I'm, I'm just, uh, I'm not maybe attaching the two and I, I think that's one reason maybe I'm, I had failed, like with your personal connection to try to go to where.

It was applicable to legislation, but I think in a much broader context of where you want it to apply, I think that's something we'd be interested in looking at. Um, but I don't know, like s trying to figure out where it goes to, but like general protection. Yeah. Probably something to what

end. So people, um, after five years that they're still part of this protective class.

Can you, this is just me just trying to play a little devil's advocate. I think it makes the argument. Can you think of any negative side effects of having, um, that, do you think that people would use it as a way to act like they're being discriminated against if they're not So it, it opens up a door. The second put system in place, people have misuse that Yeah.

To the detriment of those

veterans. I mean, part of it is that it would require us to protect stolen valor or do defects.

Exactly. So. Because I, I agree. I think people are, I think veterans in general are discriminated against when they get out. I believe that's probably where the five year limit came from, is because, um, you know, to kind of, to kind of reduce the amount of people that might use that as an excuse for, for not, for not giving.

But that, and this is just me playing devil's advocate. Yeah. Just kind of wanna make, I just wanna bring that. Your thoughts?

Sure, sure. Historically, that's not gonna hold up. So it's the same like reason that justice Smollett doesn't mean that we shouldn't have protection for African Americans. Yeah.

People are gonna abuse it, but that doesn't, people abuse kids. But we don't not have kids that, I mean, the biggest thing I think would, we would hit on was objections to protecting stolen valor. Uh, one of the proposed amendments inserts, actual perceived military service. Because if it's a protected classification or suspect classification, then it requires that we protect the, the perceived membership, even if it isn't real anyway.

Um, think we just need a resolution. Okay.

That's all we need. Yeah. This is.

I think, uh, you know, I think, I think it's something that

I think all you need to do is get a resolution process.

Yeah. I think, uh, act that act of crafting resolution. If you want, I can, I can get your email, I can send you, uh, I can send you a copy of the resolution of our suicide prevention.

Also, right. And so also the thing, when do legislation, we don't really make legislative uhhuh. The resolution that you're kind of having to talk about would've to start with either a national security one, which might be mm-hmm. Uh, or Americanism, which I tend to think it would be, or VA and r if you're tending, which is where Josh works.

So it is either gonna come from one or two places. So there's two, there's council, we have different, we have different pillars that come with our, their values of collegian. So they also. Constitute different bodies. So we have different, uh, groups that are chaired by volunteers. 'cause we're an all volunteer organization.

Mm-hmm. So basically you need to find either where this niche goes, it's either gonna be probably BNR or National Security, especially when it applies to active duty members. It typically falls federal national security portfolio. Mm-hmm. So you can approach your, either your post level. Or you can go to your state department for river state you are a member of, and just tell them you have a resolution proposal.

And when they go to convention, so you, you're, it's easier if you do this for your post too. 'cause your post adopts it and they just push it straight up to the state convention. And then after the state convention goes to national convention and then after the national convention becomes our policy. And so it's a pretty straightforward process where you just say what your ask is, so what you would do and.

This is something Josh can help you with too if he wants to, or you can just do it, give you the form. We have a form that just basically address resolution, go. There's a bunch of where as clauses, which basically is your support for your resolution of whatever you're asking us, and it just goes whereas members of the military have been historically discriminated against, whereas this situation, like you put in basically every reason that you have that you want this resolution, and then your ask is the American Legion Ask Congress.

To change what the law and you want us to change what you want the law to be changed to, and then with your resolution. And then by doing that to your post, having state adopted and sending it to our national convention and our chairman, which this sounds like it's difficult, but it really, it honestly, this is a process that could take six months.

Mm-hmm. Because, uh, your state conventions are literally getting ready to form right now. So we already

opened up the office upstairs scenario.

So if you. Get something in your post legitimately within the next couple weeks, write this resolution goes to your state convention. That'll be in between May and July.

You could legitimately have this passed at our national convention in August, and it'd be something the American Res, the American Legion could actively work on.

Also give you a chance to really formulate that,

right, and it's literally one page that just says it. It could be as many pages as you want. Manifesto, though I don't recommend it because no one's gonna read it. Yeah. But the simpler you make it is just the, whereas clauses, what, what you believed was wrong with the, the current rule.

What, what the, what is being done to veterans right now that you don't agree with and what you want changed about the law. And it'll be one thing and it'll literally be something we can work on nationally in five months. I

think it'll also bring a little bit of awareness to the, to this, um.

The, the,

I I have never heard of it, so, uh,

it's not something I'm familiar with either, honestly. So it's not something that's been on my attention, but I'd be interested to see where, uh, I'm interested to take the information that we've got to and if you find something that's pending, like a current bill, if you find a current bill that's pending, I can look for something to support it.

We can do that too. Um, but beyond that, we need to look. For a resolution to make sure that we can get a board. If we have a resolution, that means I can propose legislation to Congress members of Congress. Mm-hmm.

And, uh, your email is? I'm Logan. MI mm-hmm. Perfect.

My initials.

But like, if you, if like you put a resolution and I'll literally go find a member of Congress to introduce it and I promise I will.

Do you have any reference? Do

you know? I gotta get to the hill.

Do you know what post you're in?

No, I recently moved.

Okay. We get here, I mean, literally, uh. Get your State Department and

join the one in Springfield. That's fantastic.

I, I may actually need help finding a post more than I, I think I may actually be resign.

I dunno if I had security called on me before when I visited.

Okay, well there's that way too. Indeed.

You didn't have security, you had security brought down because you were argumented. Sure. We'll, have a great day.

What's the nearest Red line Station North?

Across the street. It's like I was going to union, but now if I'm going straight to the hill, is the red line the best? I'm not.

It's the hill.

Well, it's downtown, but I union, I, I guess it's okay. I'll try it. Red and fargate the closest. Right. Okay. Thank you.