Loading...
Title :
link :
Ex-Prof Used Federal Grant Money on Strip Clubs. Now Drexel University Has to Pay the $190,000 Bill
No need to guess which continent Chikaodinaka Nwankpa came from. No guessing that it was because of that that his expenses claims were not looked at closely. A competent bursar should have picked up the very first such fraudulent claim, not let it go for 10 years
For 10 years, Chikaodinaka Nwankpa allegedly took government money for engineering research and spent it on clubs offering “the area’s most beautiful women dancing on five stages.”
An engineering professor at Philadelphia’s Drexel University allegedly spent a decade using federal grant money on the city’s strip clubs and sports bars, and the school has agreed to cover his $189,062 tab to the government in order to avoid a lawsuit, the Department of Justice announced Monday.
The alleged misuse of funds was discovered in 2017 when Drexel conducted an internal audit, purportedly finding that Chikaodinaka Nwankpa, who headed the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, had—from 2007 through 2017—submitted receipts for personal iTunes purchases and “goods and services” provided by local establishments such as Cheerleaders, Club Risque, and the Tacony Club.
The 56-year-old was supposed to have used the money on energy, science, and naval research—not “the area’s most beautiful women dancing on five stages.” After the discovery, Nwankpa resigned from his position and paid back $53,328 to Drexel. He has been banned from federal government contracting for six months, according to a DOJ press release.
The Department of Justice said the university agreed to pay the nearly $190,000 settlement in lieu of a lawsuit over its violation of the False Claims Act.
“This is an example of flagrant and audacious fraud, and a shameful misuse of public funds.” said U.S. Attorney William McSwain. “The agencies providing these grant funds expect them to be used toward advancements in energy and naval technology for public benefit, not for personal entertainment.”
The university voluntarily reported its findings to the federal government and implemented changes intended to prevent similar misconduct in the future, including greater oversight for charge approval and improved auditing policies.
“Drexel takes allegations of unethical or unlawful business conduct on the part of any members of the university community very seriously and remains committed to being in full compliance with all billing regulations and requirements,” university spokesperson Niki Gianakaris told The Philadelphia Inquirer.
SOURCE
Lawsuit looked like trouble for Harvard — so how did it win so decisively?
It's no mystery. They had a very "friendly" judge. SCOTUS will be a different story
On paper, Harvard University looked like it was headed for trouble last year in a lawsuit aimed at dismantling the use of race in college admissions.
Harvard’s admissions staff consistently gave low scores to Asian-American applicants on personal traits, such as kindness and leadership, a discomfiting fact documented by pages of statistical data released in discovery. And that, said Students for Fair Admissions, the group that sued Harvard, pointed plainly to discrimination.
The drum beat of revelations didn’t stop there. Harvard’s cause wasn’t helped by its own 2013 internal report that suggested Asian-Americans could have accounted for a larger share of the class but might have been hurt by the admissions process.
And the stable percentage of Asian-Americans admitted for years before the lawsuit raised questions about whether Harvard deployed some form of racial quota, barred by the law.
“There were several key obstacles that Harvard faced not only in the district court, but in the court of public opinion,” said Rachel Moran, a law professor and former dean of the University of California Los Angeles School of Law.
And yet Harvard won handily. Federal District Court Judge Allison Burroughs in her 130-page ruling found that Harvard did not discriminate against Asian-Americans, that its use of race in admissions was narrow and met legal standards, and that its admissions process was “very fine.”
So, how did the university pull off a clear-cut win in such a consequential case?
William Lee, an attorney for WilmerHale and Harvard’s lead trial attorney, said the university pursued an unusual legal strategy for these types of affirmative action cases: It pushed for the case to go to trial, risking the public airing of potentially embarrassing details.
“The reason we have a trial is to bring to life what on paper you may not be able to communicate,” said Lee who is closely tied to the university as a member of its governing corporation.
Lee, an experienced intellectual property rights lawyer who previously represented Apple Inc. in its lawsuit against Samsung over the patent for the smartphone, said there were hazards in the aggressive path the Harvard legal team chose.
A trial would spotlight embarrassing details about Harvard’s admissions process, including the college’s fawning over the children of donors and alumni and its aggressive pursuit of athletes.
But Harvard, Lee believed, could weather those public relations hits in order to show that its admissions process was racially unbiased and legal.
“If we’re going to demonstrate our admissions process is constitutionally permissible . . . we needed to pull back the curtain and let people see how the process works,” Lee said.
Past college affirmative action cases have relied on a judge’s review of documents and depositions rather than live court testimony. Only one other landmark affirmative action case — against the University of Michigan Law School in 2001 — started with a trial before it was eventually decided by the Supreme Court.
But during the three-week trial last October over Harvard’s admissions practices, the usually secretive university and some of its most tight-lipped administrators went into detail about how they sifted through a pool of more than 40,000 applicants to build a class of about 1,600 students. Ultimately, 13 Harvard officials testified, including the former university president, three current and former deans, and a parade of admissions staff.
To combat the statistically heavy case presented by two experts from Students for Fair Admissions, eight black, Latino, and Asian-American Harvard students and alumni took the stand to share their personal stories of making it to Harvard and the benefits of using race in admissions. Students for Fair Admissions did not call any students or present any cases of applicants who were specifically disadvantaged by Harvard’s admissions process.
Harvard’s strategy was effective, said Mishell B. Kneeland, a former Texas assistant attorney general now in private practice who helped the University of Texas system win an affirmative action lawsuit brought several years ago by Abigail Fisher, a student who alleged she faced discrimination as a white applicant. The Fisher case was also backed by Edward Blum, the leader of Students for Fair Admissions.
Kneeland and other legal experts said Harvard’s witnesses were able to diminish the effect of the revelations from the university’s 2013 internal report and allay fears that admissions officers were purposefully discriminating against Asian-Americans.
“Witnesses are the ones who have the hands-on knowledge of the day-to-day stuff, not the drier statistics — the ‘story’ of how they do what they do,” Kneeland said.
The lopsided count of witnesses in Harvard’s favor was likely also an advantage, she said.
“It’s kind of like in a criminal case,” Kneeland said. “People tend to believe the side that shows up.”
Even as it fought the case in court, Harvard also sought, in some ways, to accommodate critics, making adjustments to its admissions process to address potential problems unearthed by the lawsuit. For example, after Students for Fair Admissions questioned whether race was entering into decisions on the personal scores, leading to low evaluations for Asian-Americans, Harvard issued new guidelines to its admissions officials. Harvard now explicitly warns its screeners against considering race in that category.
This past year, Harvard also admitted a larger share of Asian-American students — to more than 25 percent of the accepted class, up from about 23 percent the previous year.
While Burroughs found Harvard’s process was lawful, her decision may eventually be overturned by the US Supreme Court, whose conservative majority is often hostile to affirmative action.
Students for Fair Admissions has already filed an appeal. And both sides have built their legal teams in preparation for a drawn-out fight.
Harvard’s other WilmerHale attorneys include both a former clerk for Chief Justice John G. Roberts and a former US solicitor general experienced in making oral arguments before the Supreme Court.
The team of four attorneys representing Students for Fair Admissions all clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas, a stern critic of affirmative action.
Adam Mortara, the lead trial attorney for Students for Fair Admissions, told a Harvard Law School gathering last week that Burroughs made a “bad ruling,” according to the Harvard Crimson, the university’s student newspaper.
Mortara predicted that either the Supreme Court will strike down the use of race in college admissions, or that the details of Harvard’s admissions policies, including the advantages and privileges given to some students, will lead to a backlash against affirmative action, according to the Crimson.
“Historians are going to say that Harvard itself struck the mortal blow,” Mortara said at the event.
For the moment, however, Harvard has prevailed.
The university’s strategy to show that it stayed within the boundaries of the current law and demonstrate the importance of race-conscious admissions to diversity in education seems to have swayed Burroughs.
During the trial in October 2018, for instance, Harvard called former Brown University president Ruth Simmons as a witness. Simmons had no involvement in Harvard’s admissions policies, but she testified about growing up as the child of Texas sharecroppers whose education and opportunities were limited. Simmons testified about how going to college broadened her perspective — she received her doctorate from Harvard — and eventually helped her rise to become the first African-American president of an Ivy League university.
Lee said he has known Simmons for years and thought her personal story and academic experience would bring to life Harvard’s perspective and goals on race and education.
“In a trial you always try to tell a narrative,” Lee said. “Who better to bring this to life?”
The testimony seems to have stuck with Burroughs.
In the final paragraphs of her decision arguing that the consideration of race in admissions remains a necessity, Burroughs quoted passages from Simmons’ testimony.
“That eloquent testimony captures what is important about diversity in education,” Burroughs wrote. “For purposes of this case, at least for now, ensuring diversity at Harvard relies, in part, on race conscious admissions.”
SOURCE
Abortion opponents abused and harassed at George Washington university
Nothing is more self-evident: Every innocent human person – born or preborn – has the right to life. However, our culture has strayed so far from God and reason that what used to be self-evident is no longer so, particularly on left-wing college campuses where procured abortion is considered more than a right – it has been elevated and granted the status of a secular virtue.
This dark pro-abortion reality hit TFP Student Action volunteers in the face like a brick when they visited George Washington University in Washington, D.C. on September 30, 2019.
“I’m in favor of slaughtering 1,000 babies if that helps already born babies have a better life,” said a female student coldly, without showing a scintilla of remorse.
What unfolded that cloudy afternoon was eye opening.
At Kogan Plaza stood fifteen TFP volunteers. After reciting a short prayer, they fanned out on the sidewalks and got to work for moral values. “Here – take a flier, 10 Reasons to Protect the Unborn,” offered one, politely. Others unfurled the banner, displayed signs or played the bagpipes to attract attention to the noble cause.
“I was in class and my professor recognized the tune you were playing on the bagpipes,” said a student, adding, “Do you realize how liberal this campus is?”
Liberal campus or not, the truth does not hide. And TFP volunteers do not want safe spaces and are not known for being timid in their crusade to win souls for the Truth. At this point, each volunteer was engaged in conversation or debate. Yet their courteous tone was apparent and appreciated by many students.
“Oh, thank you! I’m Catholic too,” offered one.
Word got out quickly: TFP is on campus. Abortion advocates used social media to sound the alarm and organize a counter-protest. Soon, protesters started gathering in Kogan Plaza where they set-up a large electric speaker that blasted vulgar “music.” Holding pro-abortion signs, dozens of students danced in chaotic disorder to pulsating beats that emphasized the F-word.
More arrived with makeshift pro-abortion signs extoling the imagined “right” to abortion. Very few cared about having a civil discussion. Frantic dancing took over as the pro-abortion students got louder and louder. The scene looked like a tribal riot more than a gathering of students who spend $55,230 in yearly tuition to receive a higher education.
“My body, my choice!” yelled one student. “It’s a sin to tell a woman what to do with her body.”
A male student screamed: “I eat baby lungs for breakfast.”
“Hail Satan!” blurted another.
On several occasions, pro-abortion students waved contraceptives in front of TFP member’s faces. One aggressive student tried to stuff a contraceptive inside the lens of the TFP camera. Another attempted to push a contraceptive inside my pocket.
The pro-abortion mob did what mobs do. It became unruly. The chaos increased as did the chants of “my body, my choice.” The mob of about 100 students then attempted to surround the 15 TFP volunteers.
“I just got spit on,” said TFP member Matthew Miller.
A little while later, a pro-abortion student poured soda on TFP volunteer Joseph Jordan then took off running. And TFP volunteer Luis Solorzano was kicked in the back of the leg from behind. “I think the attacker wanted to kick the TFP standard pole out of my hands,” he said.
One of the youngest TFP volunteers wore a wrist brace because of recent sports injury. When pro-abortion students noticed the brace, they asked him about it. He politely explained that he was recovering from an injury. With malice, a pro-abortion activist struck his injured arm to cause pain and harm.
While these assaults unfolded, campus police officers stood observing at a distance. But they refused to take any measures. When their help was requested, they replied, “We already called the city police. They will be arriving shortly.”
Finally, police officers created a buffer zone with their bodies between the mob and the TFP volunteers. But the mob showed neither respect for the police officers nor obeyed their orders. The screaming continued: “My body, my choice.”
Later in the day, GW Voices for Choices issued a statement claiming that the TFP’s peaceful action constituted “dangerous discourse” and expressed “outrage” against the police department for not expelling the TFP volunteers. “White supremacy underpins anti-abortion beliefs, and it is both insulting and dangerous that GWPD is protecting those beliefs, while not keeping students of all races, religions, sexualities, and creeds, and students who have had abortion safe.”
The “Queer Radicals” jumped on the police-bashing bandwagon too.
“The George Washington University Police Department came to the protest and proceeded to stand in between GW students and the [TFP] men, facing the students and protecting the men.” According to the pro-homosexual group, “students felt unsafe” because the police “failed to remove a nuisance from campus.”
While the mob yelled profanities, a nurse in scrubs approached the TFP banner. “I love that you’re here,” she said cheerfully. “It takes a lot of courage and I’m grateful.”
Then pointing to the pro-abortion mob, she added: “That’s what Hell looks like. I want to go over there and spray them with Holy Water.” She was right. It did look and sound hellish because the Culture of Death is united under the same master – Lucifer – in its hatred against God, order, virtue and innocent life.
The mob followed the TFP volunteers to their vehicles where they screamed, “never come back” and spit on the windows of their van. They also covered the windshield with a pro-abortion sign.
Nevertheless, many students who saw or heard about the campaign were encouraged to continue fighting the good fight for God’s law. “I just wanted to lend my support for all of the volunteers that went out yesterday afternoon and to let you all know that there are people out there that genuinely believe that the Culture of Death can be extinguished,” wrote a GWU student.
Yes, with God’s grace all things are possible – even the end of abortion.
After cleaning the spittle off the van windows, TFP volunteers are ready to visit the next campus.
May God inspire more young Americans to stand up and fight the good fight.
SOURCE
thus Article
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article with the link address https://onechildsmart.blogspot.com/2019/10/ex-prof-used-federal-grant-money-on.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment