Sunday, April 08, 2012

My Response To The Inaccurate Daily News Article In Today's Paper.

I have read and digested the highly inaccurate Daily News article about me and realized that my decision not to be interviewed by their reporters was a sound decision. Despite assurances that the article would represent my view of the DOE's abusive investigation process, it turned out to be nothing but more teacher bashing "yellow journalism" by the Daily News. Let''s break down the article piece by piece and show what was inaccurate.

Credibility Of The Student:

The Daily News knew from talking to a witness in my open 3020-a hearing that the credibility of the student was an issue. The student had made conflicting and contradictory statement at the hearing and even gave different statements to various people when asked about the incident leading up to the 3020-a hearing. However, the article did not seem to care about the student's credibility. Just what she claimed, depending on who she spoke to of course.

The Statement:
The Daily News took the student's original recollection that was used in the SCI report rather than the Arbitrator accepted statement of "I"m so proud of you passing the test I could just kiss you, of course I wouldn't do that because I would get in trouble". While the difference is not major, it still is different enough. I admit it is better than the deliberately changed DOE statement the Daily News attributed to me "If it's not going to get me in trouble I would kiss you" .

Touching The Student:According to the article which insisted in using the biased and exaggerated SCI report, the student accused me of touching her shoulders with my hands. However, the student admitted at the 3020-a hearing that I used one hand to pat her clothed shoulder to calm her down as a reassurance action. Yet the Daily News chose to use the now discredited statement by the student rather than the truth. Furthermore, I never grabbed the student's elbow and that charge was dismissed by the Arbitrator, still the Daily News chose to include it in the article. As for the ridiculous accusation that I was looking down her shirt? The Arbitrator dismissed that charge as well, yet again the Daily News chose to use it in the article.

The 2002 Reprimand:
This is just another case of the Daily News failure to "fact check". The 2002 Reprimand was grieved by me and the DOE's favorite Arbitrator, Martin Schienman, threw out the reprimand as "unfair and inaccurate" and was removed from my file. That is why I didn't mention it in my previous post. The fact that the DOE chose to include it in sending my case to the Daily News speaks volumes about the DOE's failure to abide by the rules. The DOE are "sore losers" and this is just another case of them not abiding by the contract.

Failure To Include The "Probable Cause Hearing" Results:
Was the failure to mention the "probable cause hearing" for alleged sexual misconduct which I won, simply negligence or was the omission done purposely? I guess if you want to keep the question about "sexual misconduct" alive, you would omit the "probable cause hearing" results which the Daily News article did.

The DOE's Insistence In Pursuing My Case Despite Their "Probable Cause Hearing" Loss.
Once the DOE lost the "Probable Cause Hearing", they should have admitted defeat and that they had no case and end this travesty of justice. Instead the DOE wasted an additional quarter of a million dollars or more by dumping me back in the "rubber room" for two and a half years and hoping that something else would magically appear to change their losing hand. Yet the Daily News failed to question the DOE's motive in pursuing the case against me.

No Mention Of The Biased SCI Investigation:
The article failed to mention how the SCI investigator was found to have lied about what I said and was caught on this by the "probable cause Administrator". Furthermore, the Daily News took much of the article out of the SCI report which had been discredited in the 3020-a hearing. In my experience, the SCI investigation process is unfair and when principals want the teacher out of the school, the SCI investigators will do what it can to accommodate the Principal's wishes.

Why Didn't The DOE Appeal The Arbitrator's Decision?
Of course the Daily News article failed to ask that question. The answer was that they were lucky that the Arbitrator gave me a $2,000 fine. If the Arbitrator was truly fair, I should never have been given a fine at all but she had a reputation of giving the DOE something even when the facts show they have no case. Their appeal would have no chance of winning and they knew it.

Connection With Serial Ax Murders:
Including in the article Mayor Bloomberg's idiotic statement that the Arbitrators would give "serial ax murders a slap on the wrist" as if I am a criminal sex offender, rather than a victim of a DOE persecution is really disgusting. My Arbitrator realized this when the DOE failed to provide real and relevant evidence that was needed to support their false accusations and ruled accordingly.

Please don't believe what you read in the newspapers, usually the truth is very much different and so it is in my case. Was the Daily News just lazy and didn't bother to read the 3020-a hearing record or just wanted to bash and embarrass me by using the faulty SCI report as their source of information? Only they know the reason for their poor journalism. By the way I don't rant but publish well reasoned and insightful analysis of education issues. What would you call Mayor Bloomberg's idiotic statement? Now that is ranting.

I am Eric Chasanoff and proud to be a teacher.


reality-based educator said...


These "journalists" are scum. They live to make headlines, they don't care about the people or reputations or careers they destroy, they don't care about truth or facts or fairness - they only care about their own ambition, their own careers, their own egos.

It is quite clear with the coordination of these stories in different papers that the NYCDOE and City Hall are starting a new offensive on teachers and teachers' work protections, so they dropped these "scoops" into the laps of their media lapdogs to get the campaign started.

Soon we will hear the mayor, the governor, the NYSED commissioner et al. jump in on this to call for new rules governing teachers accused of wrongdoing to be fired immediately. And of course this will be for the "good of the kids!" Because misleading stories about 22 teachers ALWAYS means all 75,000 NYC teachers are guilty of something and we need to change the rules regarding work protections so we can fire teachers at will. And then that campaign will be parroted by these same "journalists" in the papers. Just the way the Bush admin planted horseshit stories in the Times about Iraq and WMD's, then used those stories to call for an invasion of Iraq. It's the same strategy. Plant stories in the papers that are horseshit, then use those stories as evidence for some heinous action.

I think it is time to develop a "value-added analysis" of the "journalists" at the Post, the News, the Times, Gotham Schools, Huffingtonpost, Edweek et al. and see just how much value they detract from society through their corporate-sponsored stenography.

Linda Silverman said...

And I am proud to call you colleague and friend.

Arthur Goldstein said...

Here's the comment I left on the DN piece:

I spoke to Ben Chapman yesterday, and my remarks were not included. Obviously they did not meet the low standards this piece demanded. I know also of someone who attended the 3020a hearing whose remarks were not included.

I thought it was the job of newspapers to report, not to ridicule and demean. Clearly I was mistaken. Rudimentary fact-checking would have told you the 2002 letter was thrown out, and yes they do that for a reason. That reason is that baseless nonsense, though favored here, is simply not acceptable everywhere.

In America, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. In this article, apparently, teachers are guilty even after they are declared not guilty. Here is what I said to Ben Chapman, among other things--I know Eric Chasanoff, and I would not hesitate to allow him to teach my 15-year-old daughter. In fact, if she falls behind in earth science, I will call him to tutor her.

Conversely, the writers of this article know him not at all, nor have they checked on what they wrote. I don't blame him for not having spoken with you. My having spoken with you was a waste of my time, and I can't blame him for not wishing to be part of the crystal-clear agenda of this piece.

Anonymous said...

Its become increasingly well known that Ben Chapman is a total piece of crap.

Pete Zucker said...

Hang in there Chaz! You are standing up to the bullies and they soon will be running for the hills.

But remember, the DOE looksthe other way when administrators are deviant.

Arbeiter said...

I can no longer talk to certain family members about the state of our once-proud profession. The propaganda machines that unfortunately INCLUDE the New York Times have done their job, and these family members drank the Koolaid. I was proud also to be a colleague and friendly with you, Chaz. I saw what a great professional you are, dealing with all types of kids including the most at-risk and emotionally brittle students. I believe you are being targeted because you have certain views which you have shared on this blog which have offended the delicate sensibilities of DOE "leadership". You are a true leader; the "journalists" are just libelous versions of Rush Limbaugh. I agree with RBE. These "journalists" are scum, bashing and demeaning in order to serve their fascist masters instead of focusing on truth and objective reporting.

Anonymous said...

Keep fighting. everyone knows how biased the DOE is unfortunately they are the bosses and they rule. They have done this to countless teachers before you and continue to do this to others who stand up to them. I hope you are hiring a lawyer and sue them all for defamation of character and taking away your livelihood.

Anonymous said...

This is Ben Chapman, one of the reporters behind the stories about Mr. Chasanoff that appeared in the News.
I'm not going to address Mr. Chasanoff's points individually, but I would like to remind you all that Mr. Chasanoff declined to speak with me before we published the piece. Hardly seems fair for him to bash us for failing to "fact check" when he refused to speak with me.
In any case, I invite Mr. Chasanoff and the rest of you to get in touch with me to tell me about your concerns. I really do want to hear from you. I'm just a hard-working reporter trying as hard as I can to tell the truth in my stories. My email is Thanks, Ben

Chaz said...

Mr. Chapman:

You got to be kidding? You claim that I refused to speak with you and that is true. However, you had information from Arthur Goldstein and Betsy Combier that you chose to ignore in the article.

You relied on a discredit SCI report, an Arbitrator removed reprimand from 2002, and ignored the 3020-a document that showed the inconsistent and inaccurate statements that the DOE tried to pass as the truth.

If you were really a "hard working reporter", you would have looked at all the information and realized that the DOE lost a "probable cause hearing". Don't you think that was relevant?

The Daily News trash piece about me was highly inaccurate and still keeps open the question about my reputation.

Shame on you I am just a "hard working teacher" and trying to do the best for all of my students.

Chaz said...

oops. It should have said discredited not discredit. By the way why use the word rant if your motives were fair?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Chasanoff,
Ben Chapman here again. I was one of the reporters who contributed to the article, but I did not write the piece. You'll see that my name is not on the byline. Therefore I was not responsible for the inclusion of the word "rant" in the piece or for any of the other words in the article. However, let the record show that you do refer to Dennis Walcott as a "pet poodle" in this blog.
To another of your points, the DoE did not tell the News that your letter of Reprimand had been thrown out when they gave it to me per my FOIL request. If you had spoken with me and told me that, I would've gone back to them to confirm. My email account and cell phone are both available to you and I would like to hear from you if you ever care to reach out to me. Thanks, Ben

Chaz said...

Mr. Chapman:

I really do not believe you or the Daily News. A good journalist would have "fact checked" the DOE information and you didn't.

Didn't you think the "probable cause" issue was relevant? I guess not. Didn't they give you my 3020-a hearing report where the Arbitrator dismissed all the hearsay and unfounded allegations that the DOE accused me of and only found that I embarrassed a student?

With regard for ranting, calling Chancellor Walcott the Mayor's poodle is about his lack of independence to the Mayor's education goals. However, what would you call Mayor Bloomberg's idiotic statement about ax murders? The motives of the Daily News is crystal clear and it was not to find out the truth but to support the DOE in their failed attempt to persecute teachers who were victims of a witch hunt.

Finally,maybe the Daily News should be questioning the Chancellor's judgement on what is "sexual misconduct". He obviously does not seem to know what it is.

28 year retired NYC teacher said...

None of us should believe anything that the sick yellow journalism-media in this country produces. They have their templates through which they filter every story that they think is "news". They outright lie, or lie with selective edited "facts" to advance their template. They couldn't care less about fairness or the truth. So talking to the media will almost certainly not advance the cause of anyone they want to smear.

Invictus said...

BChapman seems to be writing only lurid, yellow press type of articles and whatever 'he' might be saying are reactionary...but then, what else do we expect from someone who writes for the respectable Daily News, where all news that is unfit for printing gets printed. That is with the collaboration of the likes of Chapman and company.