Carl Barney and NYT article

The Critics of Objectivism
21

The more I read of what you capitulate here, HandyHandle, the more I wonder about what axe you have to grind with Carl Barney. If Barney’s schools received over $660 million from the federal government, where does the fraudulence lie? Is it because Mr. Barney accepting the tuition, or because the federal government is providing it at taxpayer expense to “indoctrinate” the children? Is the real beef over for-profit/non-profit, or the failure to “indoctrinate” the government funded children?

What is your obsession with Carl Barney here, or should it be: what is your obsession with the Church of Scientology here? In viewing your diatribe on this matter here thus far, Patricia Cohen does come across as knowing her job.

22

dream_weaver,

You ask “If Barney’s schools received over $660 million from the federal government, where does the fraudulence lie?”

The fraud lies in how Barney obtained the .66 billion.  It’s explained in the Brooks-Wride-U.S. Complaint against Barney.   I’ll copy part of the Idaho District Court’s summary of that Complaint at the end of this post.

You characterize my interest in Barney as “obsession.”  Though this thread is about Barney not me, if you want to know why I am interested in Barney … 

I’m interested in the spread of Objectivism. Objectivists – at least those in the Rand Institute orbit – are associating Objectivism with a man (1) who was a top manager for about nine years in a racket calling itself the Church of Scientology, leaving only because he was thrown out around the age of 38, (2) who now lies about it, (3) who got rich – several hundreds of millions of dollars rich – from receiving government funds obtained – if the Complaint allegations hold up in court – by fraud, (4) who lectures us on Objectivist Ethics.

His for-profit schools’ profit margin was extraordinarily high; most of the .66 billion went into his pocket.  The virtue of selfishness?  In practice he gives a meaning to “selfishness” that Objectivists have been fighting since day one.

The following is from the Idaho District Court’s summary of the Complaint against Barney et al:

Quote

Relators Katie Brooks and Nannette Wride worked as admissions consultants at defendant Stevens-Henager’s Orem, Utah campus during 2009 to 2011. They say that the school paid them bonuses for enrolling students – in violation of the incentive-compensation ban. Relators further allege that this practice was implemented at all defendants’ schools, not just at the Orem campus where they worked.

Relators also allege two other types of misconduct. First, they allege that the schools falsely certified compliance with the so-called “90-10 rule.” This rule requires for-profit schools to obtain at least 10% of their revenue from non-government sources. [In other words, they claim Barney got over 90% of his revenue from the government.] …  Second, relators allege that the schools gave false information about faculty qualifications, attendance-taking practices, and student academic performance to an accrediting body. …  According to relators, the Department of Education then relied on the schools’ accreditation to determine that they were eligible to participate in Title IV [government backed loans] programs.

 

 

23

So the illegality threshold is set by the government  via the so-called “90-10 rule.”

All heil to the state. 90% of funding coming from the state seems extraordinary to me. It seems that Carl Barney was simply trying to adhere to the “letter of the law” and cut it too close. As to the spread of Objectivism, Carl Barney has been caught in the cross-hairs, and picked to serve as an example to those who might practice taking similar advantage of government offered largess.

The Church of Scientology angle still seems like an incidental angle of opportunity to attempt to crucify Carl Barney here.

Keep in mind that the tree of reason cannot thrive for long in the swamps of irrationality. You haven’t actually provided a clear cut reason for his having been excommunicated from the Church of Scientology.

24

Hey, HandyHandle. You seem to be engaged in a campaign against a fellow Objectivist…which is fine, you have the right to do that.

But, at the same time, he has the right to know who’s attacking him. So would you mind posting your real name, as well as any kind of affiliation you have with the AR Institute, or any other Oist or political/religious organizations?

If what you’re saying about your interest in Carl Barney (that it’s not anything personal, you’re merely interested in protecting the image of the Oist movement) is true, then telling everyone who you are will help lend credibility to what you’re saying. It proves that you are willing to stand behind it, and stake your reputation on it, you’re not just engaging in an anonymous smear campaign.

25

dream_weaver,

I’m not trying to “crucify” Barney (Jesus Christ!) any more than I’m “obsessed” with him.  This thread is about Barney, not me, and the arguments don’t depend on who’s making them.

About Barney’s excommunication from the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard told mission staff he’d been skimming COS funds.  Even if LRH falsely accused Barney the salient point is that Barney did not leave the COS voluntarily.  While busily roping in suckers for “Auditing” so they could become “Clear” – price $6,000 (they don’t call it Church of $ for nothing) – he was suddenly expelled.

You haven’t addressed the two sections of the Complaint I pointed out.  For example you ignored the allegation that upper management of Barney’s schools knowingly misrepresented teachers’ qualifications, including (this is in the Complaint but not the summary) teachers in medical fields.  Or was that just “trying to adhere to the ‘letter of the law’” too?

If the Complaint is true then you tendentiously call skirting the law “trying to adhere to the ‘letter of the law’.” Others would call it fraud and greed for the unearned.  This is a fellow Objectivist?

Hello Ninth Doctor? What do you say about all this?

 

26

10 minutes ago, HandyHandle said:

You haven’t addressed the two sections of the Complaint I pointed out.

True. I’ve no interest in making a research project out of this. At the same time, absent such an undertaking, what has been presented thus far misses what I initially observed in the NYT’s article as well as the my observation about what the general focus of TOS’s followup addresses.

The fact that you’ve only recently discovered the articles is only incidental. From what I’ve read thus far between yourself and Craig Biddle, the TOS has more moxie, and I consider it to be more saliently put. If that makes me more tendentious, then so be it. It is my mind that has to consider what are the relevant facts, and part of that consideration sometimes takes into consideration (rightly or wrongly) the manner in which they are presented.

As Paul Harvey was fond of saying: “Good day!”.

27

18 hours ago, HandyHandle said:

Hello Ninth Doctor? What do you say about all this?

 

I’m worn out on the topic.  But since you’re calling me out by name: let’s assume Barney made a nice pile out of Scientology (which, point conceded, is a scam).  He got booted out, who cares why, though probably for being too successful, thus becoming a threat to other “intellectual heirs”.  He discovered Objectivism, and attended Rand’s final public appearance, when she excoriated the Universities.  He goes home and watches the Fountainhead movie, and finds himself (sitting on his ill-gotten pile) identifying with Wynand when he calls his earnings from the Banner the “financial fertilizer” to build a great building with Roark.  Putting two and two together, he launches into private colleges for his next venture. 

And someone else can fill in the rest.  That student loans aren’t exactly money from the Government, they are how the customers get the money to pay.  Many will be happy afterwards, plenty won’t.  If Government weren’t involved (via guarantees, special tax treatment, and a special exemption from bankruptcy discharge) there would be a private alternative.  That’s been crowded out, that’s just the way these things work.  And the Government is going to stick it’s nose in eventually, eventually having arrived within the last few years.  But I meant to wrap up about 5 sentences ago.

My verdict: not convinced.  Maybe he is a bad guy, but on this evidence I’m voting for acquittal. 

 

1 Like
28

9th Dr.,

Barney just gets better and better.  Not only is he admirable for overcoming his Scientology past (which gives him a certain background he can draw on, LOL), he’s comparable to Gail Wynand of The Fountainhead!

It’s ridiculous.  I’ll let the facts already adumbrated speak for themselves because it looks like nothing more I can say will convince OOers that Barney and his millions ought to be shown the door.

However I want to correct an economic fallacy in Ninth Doctor’s last post.  “If Government weren’t involved … there would be a private alternative.” – as if to say the government wasn’t responsible for Barney’s outsized profit, that the existence of government grants and government backed loans did not put money in his pocket hugely over and above what money he could have gotten if only private banks had been available.

The grants part is obvious – banks don’t give money away – but what about government loans? The effect of government loans differs from that of bank loans in several ways:  (1) The government makes it possible for a non-creditworthy person to obtain a loan.  (2) The government subsidizes much of the interest.  (3) The government guarantees the loan, meaning it pays the bill if the person defaults on the loan.  In each case the result is more students in Barney’s schools and extra money in his pockets.

Government subsidy to buyers of a product increases the cost of that product, enriching its purveyors and impoverishing those not “connected.”  This is elementary Economics and no more well illustrated than in the absurdly inflated cost of college today.

Barney goes whole hog regarding admission to his schools (this quote of Barney is from Patricia Cohen’s NYT article):  “We don’t select the best. We take who comes there and do the best we can.”  Later, regarding dropouts and debtors: “I’m really sad about that, but I’m not guilty. We do everything to help them graduate.” Then he compares his Denver school’s on-time graduation rate of 34 percent with the local community college’s of 10 percent.  I don’t believe it.  In a community college many, probably most, students take courses “a la carte” – look at such schools’ advertising – and aren’t working toward a degree.

Now quoting Ms. Cohen:  “What Mr. Barney said he refused to accept was guilt that was not deserved. In the Rand worldview, that would be ‘unearned guilt’ and akin to a sin. A rich man should not feel guilt for hard-earned wealth, he said …”   

So despite it all Barney has a high opinion of himself.  Now here he is on Dr. Hurd’s website telling how virtuous he is:

Quote

As to compensating employees: Justice in business, as you know, is crucial – one of its highest virtues and values. I joyfully practice justice in my company. My executives and staff do so many great things every day for the company and indirectly for me, and I’m so appreciative of it that I’m as generous as I can be with them. For instance, I buy all my staff and executives thoughtful Christmas gifts along with a ‘handwritten’ letter of appreciation and thanks – this is a joyous practice of justice.

He goes onto say that he gave millions in bonuses to executives for growing his schools even though he didn’t have to.  You’ll find the whole fulsome thing in Dr. Hurd’s article “The Massively Underappreciated Virtue of Egoism in Business” (October 4, 2015).
 

 

29

On 4/12/2017 at 9:56 PM, HandyHandle said:

I’ll let the facts already adumbrated speak for themselves because it looks like nothing more I can say will convince OOers that Barney and his millions ought to be shown the door.

Aside from the solitary In the news reference, there is the TOS article and Dr. Hurd piece graciously contributed by his self-appointed adjudicator for additional consideration.

30

There is a chance Mr. Blarney was and is a con artist who can play the part necessary to defraud others of their money while blinded by the optimism and evasions that go with faith or a zealous dream.

He could have, after his experience with Scientology, latched onto Objectivism, thinking incorrectly that it is also a kind of cult with a niche market ripe for his predation.

He could have embarked on a mission to bilk the naivety of the O masses, studied in earnest all Rand wrote and said, and while internally unmoved, clothed himself in the raiment of a man of rational self-interest, with the ideas and virtues of a true Objectivist.

He could have…

He also could have, as 9th doctor points out, actually become an Objectivist, and is not (or even perhaps never was) a con artist.

 

All we can go on for now is perception and evidence.  It is not likely anything outside of a full investigation would be able to decide this.  However, a potential school attendee or Objectivist organization might still want to better assess the “risk” that they are dealing with a fraud.

Here is where probability, i.e. “it’s possible” comes into the picture. 

Suggestions

1:  Look for evidence of Mr. Barney is like now by looking at what he says, his comments on Rand, his statements about himself and others.  Does he actually understand Objectivism?  Does what he outwardly profess indicate correct knowledge and Objectivist values?  Look at what Mr. Blarney has recently (since “becoming” Objectivist) done.  How does he run his schools, what are his dealing with others?  Do all the actions of the man show he is an honest Objectivist?  How “much” does he talk the talk and walk the walk…

2: Consider and weigh the evidence to assess a rough likelihood that Barney is reformed )or innocent) on the one hand or that he is in fact pulling a fast one on us all.

  1. From that risk assessment decide what to do, go or don’t go to his school, alert ARI and TOS or remain silent, or simply turn your mind and effort to things more immediate to your life.  Your choice of action of course is context dependent.

 

 

1 Like
31

On 4/13/2017 at 4:56 AM, HandyHandle said:

It’s ridiculous.  I’ll let the facts already adumbrated speak for themselves because it looks like nothing more I can say will convince OOers that Barney and his millions ought to be shown the door.

If you’re being honest about your motives, sure you could. You could prove it, and establish some credibility, by answering what I asked you a few days ago: who are you, what political/religious organizations are you associated with, how did you become interested in Mr. Barney, etc.?

Because right now, you have the credibility of an anonymous accuser with a hidden grudge: in other words, none whatsoever. I (and I’m sure anyone else with half a brain) would never let an anonymous smear arriving through the Internet cause me to question my friends’ or business associates’ honesty or character.

32

Strictlylogical,

Thank you for a thoughtful post.  We more or less agree.  I will take issue with one point and add one “could have.”

First the additional “could have.”  Some people read Rand’s novels and –
despite her crystal clarity – confuse her selfishness with a justification for lording it over other people.  Over the years I’ve seen several articles by journalists who interviewed people like that.  In each case the journalist went along with the person’s misunderstanding of Rand, that is, the journalist presented a jerk as someone who understood and acted on Rand’s philosophy, making Rand look bad.

It’s possible Barney is such a lord of the manor person, that he thinks Rand’s selfishness means he can walk over anyone with moral impunity, that he is innocent, perpetually innocent.  If this is true then he isn’t pulling a fast one so much as fooling himself.  Instead of conscious deception of others his is an unconcious deception of himself; he fools himself into thinking he’s honest, honest by Objectvist standards.  I think this “could have” is the most probable.  

There is one correction I would make.  “[Barney] … is not (or even perhaps never was) a con artist.”  Surely the parenthetical remark is mistaken.  Barney was running Scientology “missions” starting in 1969 or 1970, by the early 1970s he was running five (four in Los Angeles, one in San Diego), and he was kicked out in 1979.  In 1979 he would have been 38 years old give or take a year, no spring chicken.  

He probably began innocently enough (Melbourne in the 1960s) but by the time he was running missions he had turned into a con man.  Read any exposé  of Scientology to see what an extraordinarily crooked operation it is – today and even more so in L. Ron Hubbard’s time.  There is no way, absolutely none at all, that Barney was not a conscious, well-aware actor in the “Church of Scientology” racket.

Given that he was a con man then makes it all the more probable that he is a con man now – only in a different business, and with the grotesque twist that he thinks he can justify what he does by parroting Ayn Rand about selfishness and unearned guilt.

Keep in mind that Iago, rubbing his hands with glee at his own iniquity, is strictly a work of Shakespeare’s imagination.  In real life evil is always self-righteous.  You cannot tell the heroes from the villains by the emotional noises they make.

33

50 minutes ago, HandyHandle said:

Given that he was a con man then makes it all the more probable that he is a con man now – only in a different business, and with the grotesque twist that he thinks he can justify what he does by parroting Ayn Rand about selfishness and unearned guilt.

Justify with whom?

34

HH

My reason for suspending judgement was only that I don’t know how the Scientology hierarchy of fraud works.  It could be assumed that fraud and/or deception occurs even within the organization.  So that different levels of naïveté complicity and perpetration exists.  He attained a certain level … what that really means in terms of blameworthiness is not clear to me without the facts.  He may have himself still been a victim slowly sliding towards being a perpetrator on the momentum of his own evasions at the time… 

35

Strictlylogical,

Quote

[Barney] may have himself still been a victim slowly sliding towards being a perpetrator on the momentum of his own evasions at the time.

“Momentum of his own evasions” may well describe what happened with Barney but it hardly excuses him.  Evasion in itself is, to use your word, blameworthy.  

You point out that there can be differing levels of complicity.  One indication of Barney’s level is that while he managed the COS “missions” in Los Angeles and San Diego, Hubbard’s protege, David Miscavige, managed the ones in San Francisco.  “Mission” management was not a low level job within the COS.

Furthermore, how could Barney not know what was going on?  He managed his COS “missions” for nine years.  Only if he had been a low-grade moron could he have been unaware of what he was doing.  Add in the fact that he was ousted from his high position rather than leaving the COS of his own initiative, it is absurd to claim “maybe he was a victim.”

Rand once said: “Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent.”  Barney doesn’t deserve one bit of pity.  What of the people he defrauded by managing a significant part of the COS apparatus?  Where is the concern for them, the true victims?

We cannot be sure Barney’s work at the “Church of Scientology” wasn’t innocent?   Yet all one has to do is point out the history above.  He was a grown man.  He was not a zombie or puppet.  Only by a perverse intellectual contortion can one avoid holding Barney responsible for his past actions and evasions.

What of the Barney of today?  To go from a honcho of the COS racket to honest businessman is quite a switch in character.  If it ever occurred it must have taken time and soul searching, not to mention restitution.  Yet what does he tell the NYT reporter?  He feels (he leads her to believe he feels) “some embarrassment” about “dabbling briefly” in Scientology.  He’s still in evasion mode.  No unearned guilt for our Barney!

 

36

On 4/12/2017 at 9:56 PM, HandyHandle said:

9th Dr.,

Barney just gets better and better.  Not only is he admirable for overcoming his Scientology past (which gives him a certain background he can draw on, LOL), he’s comparable to Gail Wynand of The Fountainhead!

It’s ridiculous. 

It’s an alternate narrative, and it’s probably exactly the way Barney thinks of it.  And it fits the facts very well.  BTW, the “certain background” line had to do with the ex-fundamentalist Christian I wrote of.  Today being Easter, and myself having been raised Catholic…at least I know why leg of lamb is on special at the the supermarket. Barney?  I imagine he still (after all these years) could transform two Campbell’s soup cans into an E-Meter, if the need ever arose.

1 Like
37

On 4/12/2017 at 9:56 PM, HandyHandle said:

However I want to correct an economic fallacy in Ninth Doctor’s last post.  “If Government weren’t involved … there would be a private alternative.” – as if to say the government wasn’t responsible for Barney’s outsized profit, that the existence of government grants and government backed loans did not put money in his pocket hugely over and above what money he could have gotten if only private banks had been available.

Government meddling exists in higher education.  No doubt about it.  Barney didn’t make it that way.  So we have to ask: should an Objectivist refuse to get involved in an endeavor where Government’s tentacles are present?  Don’t become a physician, since Medicare (or Obamacare etc.) is certainly going to be your paymaster?  How about banking?  Or maybe it’s ok to delve into it, but don’t be too successful (like Barney) or else you’re going to become the target of this:

646835838144e657d0e231f244a38ccdb1e654e3
646835838144e657d0e231f244a38ccdb1e654e3353×450 47.5 KB

That would be like eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols, which as everyone with a “certain background” knows, St. Paul said one shouldn’t do. 

BTW, I am curious how you know that Barney would be less successful under a different system.  You’ve perhaps run a simulation in an alternate universe?

38

Interesting read at TOS:

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2019/07/regarding-carl-barney-and-scientology/