George Gollin: True or False?

[Administrator]

George Gollin: True or False?


A variety of allegations concerning unsavory conduct by UIUC physics professor George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin) have been made here as well as in other public opinion forums.

Most recently a Ripoff Report article on George Gollin surfaced which seemed to summarize these allegations. It apparently was based on a similar article that appeared in Wikipedia, but which was censored by George Gollin himself.

Let's examine these allegations and determine if they are based on fact or simply the work of diploma mill miscreants.

TRUE or FALSE?

George Gollin is a physics professor who claims to be an 'expert' in non-traditional online education, which he calls 'diploma mills.' In fact Gollin has never taken or taught an online course, knows nothing about non-traditional education, and his only source of any 'expertise' is his own self-serving proclamations.

TRUE. George Gollin has never taken or taught an online course. His background is in physics, not non-traditional education. Unlike that of, say, John (Klempner) Bear, who has authored numerous books and articles on the topic. Before George Gollin started posting his ravings on internet discussion forums he had no background in distance learning whatsoever. Any alleged "expertise" in the field is solely self-conferred and self-accredited, not unlike that of the diploma mills he cyberstalks.


TRUE or FALSE?

A spokesman for Gollin's employer, UIUC, has stated that UIUC does '''not''' view his research into diploma mills as meeting the institution's public-service requirement since the work is not related to physics, his area of expertise. http://chronicle.com/free/2003/10/2003101301t.htm This contradicts Gollin's self-serving statements.

TRUE. According to the article published in the Chronicle of Higher Education: "[UIUC spokeswoman Robin] Kaler says the university does not view Mr. Gollin's research into diploma mills as meeting the institution's public-service requirement since the work is not related to physics, his area of expertise. 'He has a lot to offer the community and the world outside of his discipline,' she says. 'But for the university support he receives, it's for his work in his discipline.'"

George Gollin claims a subsequent letter from a UIUC provost says he was never asked to remove his website and that the university never said that non-disciplinary activity could be public service. Such notions are plainly lies, since UIUC spokeswoman Robin Kaler is quoted by the Chronicle stating the university's position to be the exact opposite. The letter appears to be another example of Gollin's creating self-serving documentation after the fact. Also, if the university never asked him to remove his website, then why did he remove his website and make a big, public fuss about it? Again, the facts speak louder than George Gollin's lies.


TRUE or FALSE?

Ironically, Gollin's own doctoral degree was obtained under suspect circumstances. Gollin submitted as his individual work a doctoral dissertation co-authored with fifteen (15) other people. Princeton's policy concerning doctoral dissertations is that the work must be independent, not collaborative. http://gradschool.princeton.edu/academic...sertation/ Gollin admits his work was collaborative, and hence on its face violative of Princeton's academic policies. Compare Gollin's dissertation with research paper with 16 co-authors.

TRUE. Princeton's policy is clear that dissertations must be the student's independent work. It is equally clear that George Gollin submitted the work of fifteen (15) co-authors under his name alone. A dissertation is different from a research article, where group authorship is common. George Gollin admits he collaborated with others in producing his dissertation, and even describes his co-authors as "collaborators." His lame explanation is that collaboration in violation of university policy is a "tradition." So is stuffing the ballot boxes in Cook County, but that doesn't make it legal, ethical or proper.

We have a "tradition" here of calling people who obtain their degrees by violating university rules and policies "academic frauds." In keeping with that tradition, we designate George Gollin an academic fraud. He is no different than the Richmond police chief awarded a degree by VCU after completing only 6 of 30 required units in residence.

If George Gollin is going to appoint himself to pass judgment on the academic standards employed by non-traditional schools he needs to demonstrate that he is in compliance with those same standards, rather than his adherence to the "tradition" of ignoring a few (or all) of them.


George Gollin says that violating university policy by collaborating with fifteen (15) others in writing his dissertation is a "tradition" at Princeton. Compare content from "Gollin's" dissertation (left) with content of 16-author article (right).


  GollinDissertation.pdf (Size: 3.57 MB / Downloads: 1,992)
  GollinArticle.pdf (Size: 3.37 MB / Downloads: 1,676)


TRUE or FALSE?

Gollin's wife, UIUC administrator Melanie Loots, was cited by federal investigators for her role in selling genetically mutated pork for human food in violation of federal health laws.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3158771/
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/FOI/UIUCLetter.htm

TRUE. George Gollin claims his wife was just "the university's contact with the FDA ," implying that she was some minor paper shuffler who maybe answered the phone the day the FDA called and not in any way responsible for people eating filth.

However, the feds addressed their letter to her, cited her by name and repeatedly referred to her as the sponsor and monitor who released the pigs for food: "Dear Ms. Loots: ...You are the sponsor and monitor of this study. ...Nevertheless, you released at least 386 pigs...for sale for slaughter as human food." How is it that cyberstalker Gollin can find malfeasance in distant Liberia but not under his own roof? He may be intimidated by women who dress in men's clothes.

FDA: College broke safety laws with pigs

Via FedEx Mail

Melanie J. Loots
Associate Vice Chancellor for Research
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
601 East John Street,
Swanland MC-304
Champaign, Illinois 61820

Dear Ms. Loots:

We are writing to follow up on an investigation conducted by Mr. Mark G. Peterson from the Chicago District Office and Drs. Amey L. Adams and Michele C. McGuinness from the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) representing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency) at your facility between January 29 and 31, 2003. This inspection was initiated in response to a letter dated October 28, 2002 and signed by investigators Dr. Mathew B. Wheeler and Dr. Sharon M. Donovan. That letter informed the Agency that they had rendered a pig from a study of double transgenic [ redacted ] crossbred pigs. You are the sponsor and monitor of this study.

This study is one of several you are sponsoring that involves transgenic pigs. Dr. Mathew Wheeler, as the Principal Investigator, requested investigative new animal drug exemptions (INADs) from FDA for the conduct of these studies. The studies are: 1) Transgenic pigs that contain [ redacted ] ; 2) Transgenic pigs that contain the [ redacted ] ; and 3) Double transgenic pigs that contain [ redacted ] . These double transgenic pigs were obtained by cross breeding of [ redacted ] transgenic pigs.

FDA regulations for the conduct of studies under INAD are set forth at 21 CFR § 511.1. This rule includes the requirement that study animals may not be used for food without prior FDA authorization. To date, FDA has not permitted genetically engineered animals to be placed into the human food supply. Nevertheless, you released at least 386 pigs from INADs [ redacted ] for sale for slaughter as human food. FDA has only allowed animals from genetic engineering investigations to be rendered for incorporation into animal feed in limited circumstances. These limited circumstances do not include permission to render animals from [ redacted ].

Another requirement of 21 CFR § 511.1 is that the sponsor provide current monitoring of studies. [21 CFR 511.1(b)(8)(ii)]. During the inspection, FDA found no evidence that you provided for monitoring of the investigation. You had no documentation that the University has a formal monitoring program or that the studies conducted by Drs. Matthew B. Wheeler and Sharon M. Donovan were monitored.

This letter serves to remind you that FDA expects documentation of plans regarding the disposition of all investigational animals and that any study that must be under INAD must meet requirements for current sponsor monitoring. It is imperative that all safety regulations be followed scrupulously to help assure the highest level of confidence possible in the conduct of this type of research.

Please direct any written response to:

Vernon D. Toelle, Ph.D., Team Leader BIMO and Administrative Actions Team (HFV-234) Division of Compliance Office of Surveillance and Compliance Center for Veterinary Medicine 7500 Standish Place, Suite E469 Rockville, MD 20855-2773

If you have any questions please feel free to contact either Dr. Vernon D. Toelle at 301-827-0312 or Mr. George A. Prager at 301-827-7791.

Sincerely yours,
Gloria J. Dunnavan Director Division of Compliance (HFV-230)
Office of Surveillance and Compliance
Center for Veterinary Medicine

  LootsHogVendorFDA.PDF (Size: 27.75 KB / Downloads: 1,309)


George Gollin can find malfeasance in far distant lands but can't find someone illegally selling mutant pork for food under his own roof.


TRUE or FALSE?

Gollin failed to prevent a fellow UIUC professor from engaging in a homosexual relationship with a student, mass murderer [[Steven Kazmierczak]], before Kazmierczak killed five students and wounded more than 15 others.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local...2056.story

TRUE. Somehow the Chicago newspaper managed to discover that mass murderer Kazmierczak was being sexually exploited by a UIUC professor some 140 miles away in Champaign, while once again George Gollin the self-validating sleuth somehow just couldn't sniff out an esteemed colleague's perverted, abusive criminal conduct.

Once again, George Gollin the "expert" seems to know what people might be doing on some distant continents but has no clue what is going on right under his nose at his own workplace.

George Gollin also has real difficulty distinguishing important crimes like sexual abuse and mass murder from trivial offenses. His priority is protecting the wealthy higher-education cartel members, who have abundant resources available to protect themselves, and not protecting the innocent victims of UIUC faculty criminality and degenerate behavior.

George Gollin's UIUC colleague sexually exploited a student, who then went on a murderous rampage. George Gollin was busy protecting interests of the wealthy higher-education cartel, which were more important to him than students or innocent victims.


TRUE or FALSE?

When UIUC forced Gollin to remove his offensive website, he sent his scandalous materials to Alan Contreras, an adjudicated civil rights violator and admitted homosexual.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9...9817ed39e0

TRUE. As noted above, it is true that Gollin was forced to remove his offensive website. He could have sent the materials anywhere, or even established his own personal website at his own expense. Instead he elected to submit the materials to the likes of Alan Contreras, an adjudicated anti-Christian bigot, civil rights violator and an admitted homosexual.

It is true that Contreras is an adjudicated civil rights violator.
"[T]he district court found that defendant Contreras had violated plaintiff's constitutional rights. Specifically, the district court concluded that defendant "Contreras' application of the regulations to plaintiff's degrees resulted not from an intent to achieve the goals of the regulations, but because of bias toward the institution from which they were received." That finding is not challenged on appeal.... " Benton v. Oregon

George Gollin thought it was appropriate to send his "research" to adjudicated civil rights violator Alan Contreras to post on his website.

Likewise, it is true that Contreras is an admitted homosexual, a member of the "Gay Birders of North America" who even attempted to raise money for a nude male calendar. See ODA's Alan Contreras is a fat homo. Contreras also openly solicits male college students for sexual encounters. See Personal Profile.

George Gollin thought it was appropriate to send his research to an admitted homosexual who solicits male college students for sexual encounters.

Once again, Gollin seems to have a special affinity for those who violate people's civil rights as well as supporting those who engage in sexual deviance. Not content just to ignore colleagues who sexually abuse college students, George Gollin considers the website of a pervert who actively solicits sexual encounters with male college students to be the ideal place to post his own "research."

George Gollin seems to have a special affinity for those who violate people's civil rights as well as supporting those who engage in sexual deviance, like Alan Contreras.


TRUE or FALSE?

Gollin formerly was a prolific (1,280 posts) participant on a discussion forum that was discovered to be a front for pedophile-pandering gay boy pornography.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.educa...90bf3b51ce Gollin stopped posting there but has never made any public statement opposing the website owner's prurient activities.

TRUE. As the links provided show, George Gollin made 1,280 posts under the alias "galanga" at degreeinfo.com. Degreeinfo.com is a front for the pedophile-pandering gay boy pornography business of Thomas "Chip" White. White has admitted that his primary business activity is producing and selling pedophile-pandering gay boy pornography.

It also is true that despite his knowledge of these facts, George Gollin has never made any public statement opposing the website owner's activities. He has been moved to publicly describe people he thinks operate degree mills as "sons of bitches" and "disgusting monsters," but he has never said a single negative word about pedophiles, homosexuality, child sexual abuse or pornography.

And once again we see that the self-appointed "expert" is (or wants us to think he is) utterly oblivious to degenerate, sexually exploitative conduct by his friends, colleagues and benefactors.

Self-appointed cyber-sleuth George Gollin wants us to believe he was oblivious that the web forum where he posted his "research" was a front for pedophile pandering gay boy pornography.


TRUE or FALSE?

Gollin's daughter maintains two filthy internet blogs where she reveals, among other things, that she is a lesbian, that she listens to the 'suck my dick fuck my ass song' with her father George Gollin, and that her mother, UIUC administrator Melanie Loots, refers to Catholics as 'dirty Papists.'
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.educa...39ce6c9405

TRUE. George Gollin's adult daughter still maintains two blogs, Once I Swallowed and La Vice Anglaise (the latter title a French language euphemism for homosexuality). Although the former eventually was cleansed of archival evidence, this website maintains copies to prevent more lies by George Gollin. A search will confirm the link above correctly refers to quotes from those blogs.

As has been noted elsewhere, George Gollin thinks he can manage public higher education, but he can't even manage his own family. If this filth is an example of his parenting skills in action, it calls into question not only his judgment but the judgment of those who employ him as an "expert," an "informant" or as a CHEA board member.

George Gollin can't manage his own family, but he wants to manage your education.


TRUE or FALSE?

Gollin made a public death threat against five people by publishing a document with a rifle sight graphic similar to that used by the [[Zodiac Killer]] adjacent to the names of his intended victims.
http://www.dltruth.com/gollum/george_and_melanie.gif

TRUE. When posters at an internet discussion board were speculating on the stability of George Gollin's marriage, a link to a picture of Gollin and his wife was posted with the caption "Goatbags Splitsville?"--an obvious satire on checkout stand journalism. George Gollin's angry response was to issue a death threat to those he believed responsible for the comments he deemed offensive. He did this by replacing the linked photo (on his university-owned website server) with the one shown in the quote, a Zodiac-like rifle scope cross-hairs graphic next to the names of five intended victims.

George Gollin disingenuously claims it wasn't a rifle scope at all, but merely a microscope. Presumably the Zodiac Killer was just drawing little microscopes too when he bragged about his slayings, and people were all very silly to have been worried about it.

Invoking the deadly imagery used by a mass murderer is no laughing matter. In most jurisdictions a death threat is a criminal offense and taken seriously by law enforcement. It's a mystery why the George Gollin has not been prosecuted for this conduct.


Irresponsible George Gollin invoked the deadly imagery of the Zodiac Killer to make a death threat against people who angered him with an internet prank.

CONCLUSION. The various allegations concerning unsavory conduct by UIUC physics professor George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin) are TRUE.

The Ripoff Report article and the similar article in Wikipedia are both based on actual, proven facts. Taken as a whole, George Gollin is at the very least guilty of extremely poor judgment and irresponsible behavior. The judgment of those who employ him as an "expert," as an "informant" or as a board member is similarly called into question.

Despite his tenuous connection to non-traditional education, the fact that he continues to insinuate himself into the field of distance learning with no background other than his own say-so, and--more importantly---that others in responsible positions seem to actually take him seriously, warrants the appointment of George Gollin to the DL Truth Hall of Shame. Let this serve as a warning to the public of his dubious conduct and character, his prior multiple and severe lapses in morality and judgment, and to prevent further and future injury to those he and his associates cyberstalk, abuse, and violate.