Joel Grant’s answers to the ten questions
1. What do these messages say or imply about this course?
Most of the messages are concerned with the conference and not the course
so we must look primarily at what the messages imply about the course. There is
an explicit passage about the course: (by Drago) "Ken Rahn has the
unmitigated gall to "teach" a JFK assassination "course" at
the university level. His "reasoning" is laughable, his agenda
deplorable and in full service to the enemy. His stated goal is to influence an
entire generation."
[note to Ken Rahn: just how many chairs do you have in your classroom
anyway?]
The statement and implication above is that the course is badly taught
because the reasoning behind the course is flawed and that the reason(s) for
offering the course are immoral and "in full service to the enemy"
although "the enemy" here is not defined.
2. Are these charges truthful?
I have no reason to conclude these charges are truthful. However, since no evidence to support the charges is advanced there is no way to properly evaluate the truthfulness of the charges.
3. What do these messages say or imply about the Providence Conference?
a. (from co-host Charles Drago, who quotes from an article he wrote in a
JFK conspiracy publication) "Anyone with sufficient access to the evidence
in the case of the JFK assassination who does not conclude that the crime was
the result of a conspiracy is intellectually deficient, morally bankrupt and/or
complicit in the crime."
b. Drago, further on, attempts to marginalize and demonize what he
maintains are Ken Rahn's conclusions about the case: "Further, I had vowed
never to dignify the Flat Earthers or, if you prefer, latter-day Holocaust
Deniers who would attempt to do the enemy's work by continuing the false
debate."The comparison is that those who conclude that Oswald murdered JFK
and that there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy are compared to people
who believe the earth is flat and people who deny the existence of the
Holocaust. This is an attempt to marginalize the "lone nut" argument
away. Demonization creeps in with the comment about doing "...the enemy's
work...", which is rhetorically a close cousin to "the devil's
work." Thus, the implication is that the conference has been organized by
someone who is either stupid, corrupt, or part of the crime. It is therefore
either a waste of time or, at worst, service on behalf of the enemy. One must
speculate as to what, exactly, the e-mail writers have in mind. My speculation
is that they are suspicious of universities because universities often receive
federal funding. The e-mail writers take this a few steps further and believe
that some federal organization (e.g. the CIA) has allocated funds to Ken Rahn
and the University of Rhode Island (URI) for the purpose of spreading
disinformation about the role of U.S. intelligence in the assassination of
President Kennedy. Drago says that he is participating in the conference because
"Silence, my friend, is never a morally defensible response to an immoral
act." This is the bottom line for Drago. It is immoral for Ken Rahn to
sponsor a conference aimed at helping attendees obtain a better understanding of
the JFK assassination and perhaps more importantly, a better understanding of
how to think critically.
4. Are these charges truthful, as far as you know?
As far as I know, the charges have no basis in fact. Once again, though, because no evidence to support the charges has been advanced, it is impossible to evaluate the truthfulness of the charges. As they stand, the charges seem to me to be only the tip of the iceberg. There clearly has been quite a bit of dialogue about Ken Rahn and the course and the conference. Thus much that is "understood" by the e-mailers without the need for explicit statements is not understood by people not directly involved in prior discussion and not immersed in the JFK conspiracy advocate culture.
5. What do these messages say or imply about me?
The message is clear: you are intellectually deficient, morally corrupt and/or complicit with "the enemy". It is not clear who are "the enemy" but Ken Rahn seems to be acting in their best interests.
6. Are these charges truthful, as far as you know?
Once again, no evidence is advanced to support the charges. However, there is a zero probability that Ken Rahn is intellectually deficient. Nothing he has ever done or said, to my knowledge, indicates that Prof. Rahn is morally corrupt. And there is no evidence that Prof. Rahn has ties to "them", whoever "they" might be. The charges constitute an extraordinary claim and are not supported with extraordinary evidence.
7. List all possible reasons why these three people would be attacking in general or attacking now.
a. Ken Rahn is believed to be a "lone nutter" which means a
supporter of "the government's" position. As a scientist and academic
they fear Ken's influence.
b. Ken Rahn's analysis of the NAA evidence indicates a high probability
that all of the bullet-lead evidence specimens can be accounted for by two and
only two bullets, both of which bullets were fired through the barrel of CE139.
Attempts have been made to demonstrate that Rahn's analysis is flawed. If that
doesn't work, his character must be flawed.
c. Just as some people (loosely referred to as "the religious
right") claim to be fighting a cultural war, so are the e-mail writers
waging a war of sorts against "the enemy." They believe Rahn is with
the enemy and therefore against them.
d. Rahn not only holds unacceptable views (insofar as the e-mailers
understand those views) but he spreads his disease to young, impressionable
future leaders in the fight against the enemy.
e. The conference is coming up soon, so discouraging participation cannot
wait.
f. They have too much time on their hands.
g. They are crackpots, though that isn't very kind.
8. Eliminate those reasons that are clearly not in accord with the facts.
Reasons a-d can only be inferred from their rhetoric. Reasons f. and g. are inferred generally from dealings with JFK conspiracy buffs over many years.
9. Given that there may be more than one reason for these attacks, which of the remaining reasons seem most likely? (The simplest, the most "reasonable" etc.)
I would have to say that reason e., "The conference is coming up soon..." was the proximate cause for the attack. Clearly, they believe that what Ken Rahn is doing is immoral, and time is running out to try to persuade people that they will be considered immoral if they attend—unless, like Drago, they have a compelling reason to attend.
10. Do you think that the university, the Political Science Department, this class, or I should respond? Why or why not?
I believe that Prof. Rahn should provide copies of the e-mails to his
immediate superior, and/or the Political Science department Chair. (I don't know
the politics involved in a university; in a business I would give a copy to my
boss and ask, in writing, that he/she forward copies to the other affected
department.)
If the class is willing, I would ask them to respond. I feel their
response would be most useful in demonstrating the students' thinking and
perceptions of the class as well as the tone and content of the e-mails. Do
communications like such e-mails help or hurt those who write them? I do not
feel that Ken Rahn should make any formal response, but should informally
address Mr. Drago and find out what could possibly motivate such an attack by
someone listed as a co-moderator.
No response from Ken Rahn can possibly help. What sort of dialogue is
likely to be fruitful with people who believe you are an enemy? Actually, it is
even worse than that, since formal enemies (e.g. during war) have established
procedures to communicate in certain circumstances. There are no such procedures
established to fruitfully communicate with people who have decided, for reasons
known only to them, that you are their enemy. One can only hope that the
conference helps all attendees learn how to critically examine evidence and
their approach to the analysis of evidence.