Theiconoclast ONLINE
August 30, 2001
Peeling Off Henry Zimon’s Mask
By Achal Mehra
In a speech peppered with occasional apologies for not coming forward earlier and for any “misunderstandings,” Col Henry Zimon gave the first public accounting of his controversial resume almost two years after the allegations about his academic and professional credentials first surfaced.
“You have my sincerest apologies for anything I did or did not do,” Zimon said to a community wide assembly at Albright College on Friday, Aug 24.
The carefully staged and orchestrated event was designed by Zimon to stem the mounting pressure over the allegations of his academic dishonesty, which have been widely reported in the media. Zimon took a few questions after his presentation, but forbade any recording of his comments or duplication of documents and also ruled out any further responses after individuals had an opportunity to examine his new claims and documents that he flashed on the screen at his presentation.
Asserting that his resume “at the time it was written it was an accurate representation” of his credentials, Zimon nonetheless conceded in response to a question that “in hindsight I would have done some things differently.”
The documentation released by Zimon confirmed what has been long suspected, that his resume entry regarding a forthcoming book from Praeger was inaccurate and misleading. In fact, Zimon never had even an executed contract from Praeger and a draft contract that he produced showed that the deadline for the completed manuscript had lapsed almost 9 years earlier on Oct 1, 1992. Zimon conceded he had never worked on the book since and had not even been in touch with its co-author Chuck Gagnon for at least two years before listing the book as forthcoming in his resume in 1998. Zimon claimed he had hoped to get a sabbatical from the army after his retirement to complete the book, but listed it as a Praeger title, which was forthcoming in 1998-1999, even though he never had a valid contract for the book from Praeger and hadn’t done any work on it for years.
Zimon also did not list the book’s co-author on his resume. His explanation was that he had not secured Gagnon’s permission to do so and had not been able to get in touch with him the two years prior to his listing the book on his resume. By so doing Zimon claimed sole credit for the work.
By any academic convention, the book could only be described as an unpublished manuscript, which even Chuck Gagnon acknowledged to the Chronicle of Higher Education, was not publishable: “It was leading edge in 1992. Now it would require us to re-edit it almost into a historical document. We haven’t talked about doing that.”
It should be remembered that Zimon went to enormous lengths to dodge queries about the book, variously asserting that he was considering taking the book to National Defense University, that he was working on updating the final chapter at the request of a Praeger editor, and for several months even asserting that the (invalid) contract was lost in some boxes during packing. During all this period, both the editor he claimed was advising him, John Harney, as well as Praeger’s publisher Peter Kracht denied that they were publishing Zimon’s book or had contracted with him.
Zimon’s presentation also made clear that the second book entry on his resume CFE: The Making of the Treaty and its Implications for the Future, which he also listed as forthcoming/in progress, 1998-99, was equally bogus. Indeed, his alleged co-author on the book, former CIA Director R James Woolsey, told the Chronicle when it first contacted him, “I don’t know anything about the book.” Later at Zimon’s prodding Woolsey wrote in a letter to Zimon, “I now recall that you mentioned to me some eight years ago, shortly after we got back from Vienna, a possible project on CFE with which I agreed to cooperate if you got it going.” However, Woolsey stated “I haven’t thought about it for seven years.” Woolsey also made it clear than far from being Zimon’s co editor on the book, “I would prefer to answer questions as part of an oral history rather than be responsible for drafting a chapter.”
Zimon did not explain in his speech why he thought it was acceptable to include Woolsey’s name as co editor of his book without his authorization, while being diffident about so listing Gagnon, who had already assisted him on his manuscript, as a co-author. Indeed, there is no question that Gagnon is co-author of the first unpublished manuscript. It is far less clear that Woolsey had ever agreed to be co-editor of the second book, which is totally fictitious and on which no work had ever been done, even though Zimon stated to faculty members at the time of his appointment that he and Woolsey had completed the first chapter and had frequently discussed putting together contributors for various chapters.
The presentation also confirmed that his resume entry on teaching seminars at Harvard University was widely misleading. Zimon claimed that he and Gagnon conducted a presentation at Harvard University, whose slide presentation he made available. However, such a one-time guest presentation, as the Chronicle reported, hardly qualifies for the listing, under his teaching credentials on his resume, as teaching seminars over a two year period: “1991-92 Harvard, JFK School of Government, Seminars on Planning U.S. National Security Strategy.”
Zimon also admitted at the presentation that contrary to his resume, MIT’s Center for International Studies does not have a board, of which he claimed he was a member. He was member only of the program board of the Center’s Seminar XXI program, as the Chronicle reported.
Zimon stated that when he had earlier told the faculty that he had signed checks in the millions of dollars, he was doing so “only as a figure of speech.” In fact, he had told the faculty, in response to questions about his resume entry: “Strategic and financial management oversight of very large organizations most recently at the $60 billion per annum level” that he had “sole signature authority” on army checks. He had added at the time (in February 1999) that only the previous day he had signed a check in the hundreds of millions of dollars and that “it’s a scary feeling putting so many zeroes on a check.” Zimon conceded he had never signed government checks, which the army had separately confirmed under a Freedom of Information request, but rather he had authorized these money transfers by approving a document called OPS Form 61R. The army, Zimon said, no longer issues checks; most transactions are electronic.
In fact the OPS Form 61R Zimon alludes to is not an authorization for disbursement of electronic funds either. Rather it is a routine cover or action sheet for army documents titled “Army Joint Action Sheet” to approve policies, which on some occasions may have financial impact. Zimon’s claims that he had sole signature authority on army checks is nothing short of a bald faced lie. In fact, the OPS Form 61R Zimon produced had listed on it the name of Craig Wills as Action Officer, and in any event it was not a money transfer or requisition form. Rather it was merely the cover sheet of a policy document. Once again, Zimon should identify his specific duties in the area of his claimed financial responsibilities.
Zimon also produced no evidence to support his resume entries relating to the authorship of various treaties he had listed under publications. He did offer various testimonials about his involvement in some of the treaty work, including what he claimed was a gold embossed copy of one document, given only to insiders. Woolsey has stated that Zimon was one of hundreds of people who worked on the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe and it is truly a stretch to list it as a professional publication. By such token, we are all co-authors of the college’s strategic plan and the college catalog, because at least one of our courses is listed therein. While Zimon may well have played roles to varying degrees in some of these treaties it requires some chutzpah to claim them as his publications. It would be helpful for Zimon to identify with specificity his role in each of the treaties he listed under publications.
Zimon produced two Ohio State University transcripts emblazoned with the stamp “Distinguished Graduate” to confirm his resume entry on having distinctions on his masters and doctoral degrees. I have a written statement from the office of the registrar at Ohio State that “No honors or distinctions are on the record” of Zimon. On Monday I contacted the registrar’s office again and was advised that there is no such honor or distinction system at the university and that they have never heard of such a stamp on a transcript. They asked that I fax them a copy of the transcript to verify its authenticity. The very serious implication here is that either the OSU registrar’s office is mistaken, that there is some misunderstanding, or … I am baffled. Zimon did not permit any of the documents to be copied and so I requested Zimon to provide me a copy of the transcript, which I would send on to OSU for authentication and clarification. He has failed to respond to my request. I have also requested Trustee Chairman Salvatore Cutrona to investigate this claim. It has been suggested that some OSU departments may allow for distinctions on oral examinations. That is not the claim Zimon has advanced at any time, however, and in event the transcript he has produced represents a distinction on his degree, not just oral exams. It is a simple enough matter for the trustees or someone else to fax Zimon’s transcript to the OSU registrar’s office to clarify this matter. Individuals interested in clarifying this fact are free to contact the OSU Registrar’s transcript verification division at 614-292-8500.
Zimon also produced a recommendation letter from an unnamed individual (most names were redacted from documents) which read: “His overall performance at West Point was so impressive that he was the only officer I have ever seen promoted to associate professor and offered tenure after only two years.” Since one does not know the name of the author one cannot judge the veracity of the statement. Zimon’s official biography, still up on the Albright website, states: “Dr. Zimon was associate professor of cultural and political geography at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, where he is the only professor in West Point’s history to receive tenure after only two years.” My own understanding from West Point faculty members is that it is not uncommon for faculty members to be promoted to associate professor in two years ) and that West Point does not have a tenure system . The suggestion that Zimon is the only person in West Point’s history to be so promoted is undeniably false. On Monday, I was advised by Dr Bruce Keith, associate dean for academic affairs at the United States Military Academy at West Point: “We do not have a tenure system in place at West Point. Instead, faculty are awarded multi-year appointments based on academic rank. All new faculty begin with a three-year appointment, the first year of which is strictly probationary. Appointments are renewed by rank, with assistant professors given a three-year appointment, associate professors given a six-year appointment, and full-professors awarded a 6-10 year appointment.” Perhaps Zimon can explain how he had tenure at an institution that does not offer tenure, according to its associate academic affairs dean. Once again I requested a response from Zimon, but he refused comment. The dean’s office at USMA at West Point can be contacted at 845-938-7786 and I will be happy to share with anyone interested the written communication from Associate Academic Dean Keith confirming that West Point has no tenure system. Zimon should provide to the community the specific documentation confirming that he had tenure within the system to sustain that claim.
Finally, Zimon produced various letters, mostly in the form of testimonials from various individuals, whose identity was redacted, on his army service and his role in its educational system. For the most part, it did not appear that any of them were speaking from any direct knowledge on the matter and considering that their names were not disclosed, it is difficult to assess their credibility. The following letter, from an unidentified source (the name was redacted) was typical of such testimonials: “Although I am not an expert on the current organization and duties of individual members of the Department of Defense who work for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the description and responsibilities of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense regarding oversight of the Defense Universities, colleges and schools seems accurate. The analogy of a chancellor’s duties in a state university system is a good one.”
If you read the letter carefully, he is not speaking to Zimon’s position as being akin to chancellor, but rather the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S. Secretary of Defense being chancellor. I am not sure what that does for Zimon. It appears from the gist of these testimonials that the office of the joint chiefs of staff had oversight responsibility over the army’s educational system and Zimon is claiming as an army planner in the office of Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans (one of several divisions in the army division of the joint chiefs of staff), that gives him oversight responsibility as well. That seems to me to be an absurd stretch of logic, but Zimon produced not one shred of evidence to demonstrate any specific authority he had in the army over its educational system, other than these vague testimonials to defend very generalized and vague statements in his resume. These are obviously complicated issues, made more so by the vagueness and the generalized character of Zimon’s claims, but I propose to file new Freedom of Information requests in light of some of the data Zimon has disclosed to further investigate the subject. Once again, what would be most helpful to the community if Zimon listed his specific duties in the area of the army’s educational system.
I have also found new questions in the hitherto unexamined areas of Zimon’s resume, such as his claims of being an elected member to various boards of trustees or governors, such as the West Point Society, the U.S. Military Academy, and the West Point Society of Washington, D.C.. I requested information from Zimon relating to these claims, which on their face seem questionable. Part of the problem stems from the fact that he has not indicated the years of his service on these boards. I did not hear back from Zimon on these questions either.
Zimon’s public statements on Friday and the documents he released confirm numerous inaccuracies in his resume, most notably the misleading representations regarding the book and his teaching responsibilities at Harvard University and all the other misrepresentations documented by the Chronicle in its article. Indeed, every one of the allegations in the Chronicle was confirmed from the record Zimon produced. In addition, his claims about his financial responsibilities in the army stand totally discredited, as do his authorship claims of various treaties.
At his presentation, I asked Zimon for an opportunity to discuss my questions with him in any forum of his choosing after I had had an opportunity to examine the evidence, but he refused. Subsequently, I sent him a list of my questions, but he declined to provide any response. I have since written to Trustee Chairman Cutrona.
Unfortunately, the staged and tightly scripted performance, much like U.S. Representative Gary Condit’s efforts at refurbishing his image, only added to the nagging problems that continue to dog the college two years into Zimon’s presidency. I am delighted that my two-year campaign finally forced Zimon’s hand and compelled him to make a public accounting of his mendacity and lies. Regrettably, he continues to play with smoke and mirrors and has shielded himself from any deeper examination of the facts by declining to take any follow-up questions stemming from his acknowledgments.
Curiously, in the one forum where Zimon would have opened himself up for examination and cross-examination of his record -- my upcoming hearing in September -- he failed to challenge the accuracy of any one of my allegations against him. Consequently, the Faculty Executive Committee ruled on Aug 16 that for purposes of the proceedings “the statements attributed to Professor Mehra are true.” Zimon realizes that his rationalizations cannot stand the test of scrutiny and so he had little choice but to avoid the probing questions that he would be forced to answer truthfully at a hearing. But even this dodge is short-lived, because he will not be able to avoid that in court, where this matter will ultimately end up.
There is however now enough information on the public record to confirm all the allegations reported by the Chronicle about misleading statements made by Zimon in his resume. Incredibly, Cutrona and Zimon are known to have blamed the faculty representatives on the search committee, who they claim were responsible for verifying the credentials, but never raised any concerns during the search process.
The resulting controversy has sapped the college spirit and it seems that most faculty members are simply numbed into submission. Nearly a half dozen faculty members have quit the college in disgust as it flounders from one crisis to the next. Student attrition rates are up markedly, graduation rates are down, and the number of alumni gifting to the college declined nearly 15% in the first year of Zimon’s presidency compared to the year immediately preceding it. Now that many of the facts are finally public, people can make up their own mind on the magnitude and severity of Zimon’s misconduct. In my personal opinion, the only honorable thing left for Zimon to do is to resign and save the college from the shame and embarrassment he has heaped upon himself and the college.
Ironically, at his presentation Col Zimon boasted that the college had been recognized as a college of character by the College Values website. The selection of these colleges is through a system of self-nomination and after it was disclosed I wrote to the director of the program Jon Dalton at Florida State University regarding Col Zimon’s misconduct, the censorship of the Albrightian, the fudging of the ranking data, etc. His response was: “We were not aware of the information you provided and will review our recommendations in light of this.” The college listing was subsequently removed from the website on August 10. In a subsequent email, Professor Dalton wrote: “We appreciate the suggestions you made about our review process and the information you sent. We have made some appropriate changes and thank you for taking the time to give us this feedback.”
I am sorry, but an institution that permits its president to get away with falsifying his resume; where there are grave questions of the fudging of its admissions data on ranking reports; that last year censored its student newspaper and from which at least six faculty members have resigned protesting the president's academic misconduct, is no college of character. Rather it deserves an entry in the hall of shame.
