August 2004

A dialogue with Palmer College President Donald Kern, DC

The recent turmoil at Palmer College of Chiropractic -- with the sudden resignation of Guy Riekeman, DC as president and the installation of Donald Kern, DC, as his replacement -- has led to a number of changes which impact not only the students and faculty at the school, but the entire profession. Questions about the intended mission of the school, academic freedom, and other critical issues have been raised and are the topic of heated discussion by DCs everywhere.

One particularly revealing dialogue took place via e‑mail between Dr. Kern and Terry A. Rondberg, DC, President of the World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA)

Under Dr. Riekeman's leadership, the WCA enjoyed a mutually beneficial professional relationship with the college. Dr. Rondberg was a generous donor to the school, whose contributions put him in the "President's Circle" of supporters. He was, in turn, invited to participate as a speaker in the Homecoming event and his appearance was noted in Palmer announcements to the profession.

In addition, the college recognized the Palmer chapter of the Student World Chiropractic Alliance (SWCA) as an official school club, allowing students the right to meet on campus to discuss the WCA and chiropractic issues.

All that changed when Kern took office. To his surprise, Rondberg found that his name was no longer being mentioned in Homecoming announcements and he contacted Kern to find out if he was being dropped from the roster of participants. What ensued was a discussion that touched on several important issues in chiropractic and is of interest to many in the profession. The e‑mail conversation is reprinted here in its entirety.

From Terry A. Rondberg, DC ‑‑ April 22, 2004

Dear Dr. Kern:

I just received Palmer's recent e‑mail press release about the Homecoming event and noted that there was no mention of my presence as a speaker at the event. Nor am I included in your website's five‑page list of speakers. I am disappointed you did not have time to return any of my phone calls last week or the courtesy to explain any of this.

After speaking with Vicky Palmer several weeks ago your decision is surprising, I am e‑mailing her assistant and if I don't receive a response I will assume the Palmer Board is in full agreement.

To prevent any confusion, I would like a written confirmation of my inclusion in the event, as previously arranged. I was assured of my inclusion when I donated $1,000 to become a member of the "President's Club." If I am being "dismissed" from the event, I need to know it now and make arrangements for the return of my donation.

In addition, in light of the radical changes being made at Palmer, I would like a written confirmation of the continued status of the Palmer chapter of the Student World Chiropractic Alliance (SWCA) as an authorized student group. If you are withdrawing Palmer's sanction for this on‑campus group, please provide me with full details as to the reasons for the policy change.

Finally, do you or the Palmer Chiropractic University System have an "official" position on the World Chiropractic Alliance or its status as a chiropractic organization to be afforded equal recognition with other international chiropractic organizations such as the ICA and ACA? If so, would you please send me a copy of that position and inform me as to when it was officially adopted or declared.

Please clarify if Palmer is going to honor the WCA advertising contract (a full page) in regards to The Palmer Beacon.

Without a response directly from you I will be forced to make assumptions.

I thank you for your time in providing this much‑needed information.

Terry A. Rondberg, DC

President, World Chiropractic Alliance

From Donald Kern, DC ‑‑ April 27, 2004

Dear Dr. Rondberg,

I received your email of April 22 and apologize for the delay in responding. I have been away from campus recently on fundraising trips. It has been my intention to contact you, but the events of the past 10 weeks have diverted my efforts in various other directions.

Changes in administration are often accompanied by changes with some initiatives, and in this instance some of our Homecoming speakers, sponsors and events. We have not invited you to participate as a speaker in this year's Homecoming. We have offered different speaker exposures at this event for many years. We have not made assurances that participation in the President's Club, or any other form of support for the College "purchases" a slot on our Homecoming program. There is simply no "quid pro quo."

It may appear to you that recent changes at Palmer are "radical" (your words). My view is quite the opposite. I see nothing radical regarding our emphasis on the Palmer Tenets and our reaffirmation of these principles. I have enclosed a copy for your examination. It might be stated that there are some elements of our profession whose views do not represent mainstream chiropractic, and therefore, may be viewed as "radical." As for student organizations, we have made no decisions regarding the authorization of any on‑campus student organizations at this time. It is our prerogative, of course, to periodically re‑evaluate the authorized status of any campus‑based student organizations.

Relative to your inquiry as to the College's position on the WCA, it is my view that in the interest of unity in our profession several national chiropractic organizations may be counterproductive to said unity. In this regard it is essential that any organization that holds itself out to be one which embraces mainstream chiropractic does in fact represent a significant element of our profession. In my view ACA and ICA represent mainstream chiropractic. I cannot conclude that still another group such as yours brings anything to a discussion for unity in our profession.

In regard to the advertising contract with the Beacon, the verbiage of any current contracts between the WCA and the Beacon will need to be reviewed.

For my information, I would ask if you could advise us of the year you were initially invited to participate in our Homecoming, and also if you could supply us with a copy of any past PCC position statements recognizing WCA as a national chiropractic organization.

Sincerely,

Donald P. Kern, DC

Interim President

From Terry A. Rondberg, DC ‑‑ May 8, 2004

Dear Dr. Kern:

Although I am surprised you were unable to locate this information, I was notified on February 16, 2004, that the SWCA was officially sanctioned by Palmer University. Jason Helfrich (Dr. Riekeman's son‑in‑law) filed the official paperwork with the proper college office.

You also asked for any official Palmer statements recognizing the WCA as a national chiropractic organization. I can compile a great deal of material showing a relationship between Palmer and the WCA. However, let me just point to recent information distributed by Palmer about the Thursday, August 12 activities of the Homecoming. One line reads "A reception will be held with representatives from the ACA, ICA and WCA in attendance." Although you have obviously removed all reference to the WCA from your material, too many people received that notice for the school to deny it. In fact, I have a copy of it!

In 2000, when I attended the Palmer Lyceum (which you now call the "Homecoming"), Palmer President Guy Reikeman wrote to me and noted: "It will be a privilege to stand up in front of this audience and talk to them about your contribution to a future chiropractor."

It is, at best, somewhat disingenuous for anyone to pretend that Palmer never "recognized" the World Chiropractic Alliance. Your decision to refuse official status to the Student World Chiropractic Alliance, and your dismissal of me and other WCA representatives from Palmer events, is an abrupt about face from previous policy. I would very much like to understand the reasons behind it.

In your recent letter, you stated: "It is my view that in the interest of unity in our profession several national chiropractic organizations may be counterproductive to said unity. In this regard it is essential that any organization that holds itself out to be one which embraces mainstream chiropractic does in fact represent a significant element of our profession. In my view ACA and ICA represent mainstream chiropractic. I cannot conclude that still another group such as yours brings anything to a discussion for unity in our profession."

May I ask which WCA positions you feel do not "embrace mainstream chiropractic?" Among our most important positions are:

*** That the professional practice objective of chiropractors may be limited to the analysis, diagnosis, correction or stabilization of the subluxation and that the determination of the presence of subluxation may stand as the sole rationale for care ... Nothing in this position statement absolves the chiropractor from knowing the limits of his or her authority and skill, and from determining the safety and appropriateness of chiropractic care.

*** That the presence of symptoms and/or a medical diagnosis should not be a factor in determining the need for or appropriateness of chiropractic adjustments.

*** That the use of injectable drugs by chiropractors would be a hazard to the public health, contrary to public policy, and would likely result in increased health care costs.

*** Parents should have the right to seek and obtain chiropractic care for all their children, regardless of age or presence or absence of symptoms.

*** No person should be forced by government regulation or societal pressure to receive any medication or treatment, including vaccines, against his or her will.

Which of these positions do you find out of the mainstream of chiropractic thought?

In addition, you repeatedly used phrases such as: "it is my view" ... "in my view" and ... "I cannot conclude." Am I to assume, then, that you have the sole authority at Palmer to make the determination as to which organizations are "counterproductive to chiropractic unity?" Or, considering that one of the reasons your predecessor was dismissed as president was his failure to follow the dictates of the Palmer Board of Directors, should I assume you are making this decision at their bidding?

I might point out that, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, the World Chiropractic Alliance is a part of this profession. Our members have held high‑profile positions of leadership in national and international health panels including the NGO Health Committee, the VA Advisory Committee, the White House Commission on CAM, and the National Advisory Council on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (to name only a few). The WCA's publication of the Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research has resulted in unprecedented positive publicity for the profession. And our work with the International Chiropractors Association and Federation of Straight Chiropractors and Organizations in the Chiropractic Coalition has led to significant legislative progress.

For you to arbitrarily declare that a group such as the WCA doesn't "bring(s) anything to a discussion for unity in our profession," shows either that you are unaware of the accomplishments of the WCA, or that you are acting on behalf of the ACA, which, under the guise of "unity," has repeatedly tried to eliminate all other organizations.

In fact, I predict that you will next be engaging in rhetoric about how the ICA should disband and merge into the ACA, a goal that the ACA's Jim Edwards has been pushing strongly. Not long ago he wrote that, when it comes to an ACA‑ICA merger, the ACA "won't take no for an answer." I fear the ACA has enlisted you and Palmer in its battle for forced "unity."

For any college to suppress those who wish to offer students a different view of the profession is sad. For a school founded by the Palmers ‑ the chiropractic "Fountainhead" ‑ to do so is tragic.

Yours truly,

Terry A. Rondberg, DC

From Donald Kern, DC -- May 13, 2004

Dear Dr. Rondberg,

I have enclosed a copy of the Palmer Tenets which I feel places Palmer in the center of mainstream Chiropractic. While I do not speak for the Board, I would not express this view if I didn't feel it would have Board support.

I find your comment on diagnosis:

** That the professional practice objective of chiropractors may be limited to the analysis, diagnosis, correction or stabilization of the subluxation and that the determination of the presence of subluxation may stand as the sole rationale for care ... Nothing in this position statement absolves the chiropractor from knowing the limits of his or her authority and skill, and from determining the safety and appropriateness of chiropractic care.

*** That the presence of symptoms and/or a medical diagnosis should not be a factor in determining the need for or appropriateness of chiropractic adjustments.

*** That the use of injectable drugs by chiropractors would be a hazard to the public health, contrary to public policy, and would likely result in increased health care costs.

*** Parents should have the right to seek and obtain chiropractic care for all their children, regardless of age or presence or absence of symptoms.

*** No person should be forced by government regulation or societal pressure to receive any medication or treatment, including vaccines, against his or her will.

.... to be, in my opinion, evasive. Could you be more specific, please? Do you feel that chiropractors should or should not diagnose, or just diagnose subluxations.

Do you find anything in the Palmer Tenets that would seem to support the use of injectable drugs by chiropractors?

Do you find anything in the Palmer Tenets that addresses the issue of the ages of those who may need chiropractic care? No ages are excluded.

By your comment pertaining to "persons being forced by government regulation to receive any medication or treatment, including vaccines, against his or her will," are you saying that the WCA would then encourage people to violate laws in some states? We would encourage citizens to work for changes of laws through their constituted government representatives and not violate any laws.

I am the Interim President of the Palmer College of Chiropractic and represent the college's "voice" on such subjects as whom we choose to invite to our campus as speakers. My predecessor was not "dismissed" by our Board of Trustees, an issue that you and a minority element of the profession seem to wish to ignore. He could not support Board resolutions, most of which dealt with Board committee assignments. One resolution dealt with an audit (which he did support) and another dealt with a temporary freeze on hiring, which was initiated until our hiring protocols could be reviewed. You have known this since February as it was released by our P.R. firm. The fact that you continue to express your disbelief of our statements does not establish anything except your disbelief. It is obvious to me that your personal agenda for the profession may have prevented you from recognizing the truth with this issue. I had no problem with the resolutions nor did Mr. Michael Crawford, the previous Chancellor. Have you ever served at the pleasure of a Board of Directors, Dr. Rondberg? Does the WCA have a Board of Directors to which you report? Does the WCA have an election of officers? Who are the other officers of the WCA? Were you elected by your membership?

I am well aware of the fact the WCA is part of the profession. What is the size of your membership? Do your positions on professional issues differ from those of the ICA and/or FSCO?

I am really not arbitrary in my opinion that the WCA doesn't bring anything new to discussion of unity in our profession. I have felt that way as long as WCA has existed, including the seven years that I served as President. I act on behalf of Palmer College, not ACA, ICA or the FSCO.

I do find your predictions about my future plans for the ICA amusing. Palmer alumni belong to both ICA and ACA. I have always believed that unity in our profession was a hope that was held by many, not just the ACA. Doesn't the WCA want this as well? It would be my hope that all chiropractors and groups would want unity in our profession.

Our students have been exposed to various views by our faculty and others and will continue to be, at our invitation. They all seem to be well advised on the issues of the profession.

The Student WCA was apparently approved by our Student Services Department as a campus organization. While we recognize student interests in clubs vary, I was wondering where the record shows that Palmer College sanctioned or recognized WCA as a chiropractic professional organization that was bring something new to the needs of our profession or reinforcement of views already in existence.

I am not aware of any recent information that WCA is invited to a reception with representatives of ACA and ICA. Thank you for your information on this. I will look into it and see that this is corrected.

While I respect Dr. Riekeman's right to comment at our 2000 Palmer Homecoming (Lyceum), pertaining to "your contributions to a future chiropractor", that does not commit me nor Palmer College to echoing the statement. It is not my intention to defend or criticize positions that may have been taken by any of my predecessors. Nor is it my intention to defend any of my (Palmer's) positions that may differ from a predecessor. I am simply stating them.

We have not refused status, at the time of this letter, to the Student WCA. Palmer reserves the right at any time to review the status of any campus sanctioned body.

Yours for subluxation correction based chiropractic,

Donald P. Kern, DC

Interim President

From Terry A. Rondberg, DC ‑‑ June 1, 2004

Dear Dr. Kern,

First of all, I wish to thank you for confirming that "We have not refused status, at the time of this letter, to the Student WCA." However, since you made a point of noting that "Palmer reserves the right at any time to review the status of any campus sanctioned body," it seems likely that the chapter's future is in question. I ask only that you provide me with written notification of any change in status for the Student WCA and the reasons for that change.

Yet, I still question your refusal to allow me, as president of the WCA, to take part in the Palmer Homecoming event as I had been invited to do. Your letter, in many ways, proves the very point I was making. You state that Palmer College's tenets do not disagree with the WCA positions on drugs, chiropractic for children, etc., yet you characterize Palmer as being in the "center of mainstream chiropractic" and WCA as being out of the mainstream and irrelevant. How can that be? Obviously, if the WCA is congruent with Palmer on so many issues, you must be banning the organization from your campus for some other reason. I simply would like to know what that reason is.

You also stated that you find the WCA position on diagnosis "evasive." We have explained our position fully and often. There is no "evasion" about it. While doctors should be permitted to practice to the fullest extent of their state licensing statutes, they should also be allowed to focus solely on the detection and correction of vertebral subluxation if they choose. If a state permits DCs to make medical diagnoses of diseases and conditions, and if they are sufficiently trained in medical diagnosis, they are within their legal rights to do so. However, regardless of the state statutes, DCs who consider medical diagnosis not within their scope of competence or to be incongruent with their chiropractic philosophy are within their legal ‑ and moral ‑ rights to limit themselves to subluxation correction.

Do you agree with this statement or do you agree with those who argue that every DC must diagnose medical conditions? Your response to this question ‑ without evasion ‑ would help the profession understand exactly where Palmer stands on this issue.

The way you worded your question hints at your answer. You asked: "Do you feel that chiropractors should or should not diagnose, or just diagnose subluxations?" Honestly, I don't think it's a matter of "just diagnos(ing) subluxations." To me, diagnosing subluxations is the most important thing chiropractors do and the ONLY thing we do that sets us apart from the MDs, DOs, PTs, etc.

Later in your letter, you bring up the WCA's position against mandatory vaccinations, which can hardly be construed as encouraging people to violate laws in some states. We support personal freedom and full disclosure when it comes to drugs and oppose government mandated medication of any sort. If you disagree with this, shall I assume that Palmer College supports mandatory vaccinations? Or is your argument on this point merely a red herring to confuse the issue? After all, the ICA also opposes mandatory vaccine programs. Again, I must ask what the real reason for your opposition to the WCA is, since it surely cannot be the vaccine issue.

You state that you represent the college's "voice" on such subjects as who is chosen to speak on campus. Then you must surely be able to provide a valid reason for refusing to allow WCA leaders on your campus as speakers.

Even if, as you suggest, the WCA is not "mainstream" enough for you, is that a sound reason for silencing an entire segment of the profession? Do you think it benefits your students to have you act as the gatekeeper for information they are allowed to receive? Are they so lacking in intelligence and discrimination that they are unable to decide for themselves what is useful and what is not? I don't think so. In fact, the students I've met at Palmer are exceptionally bright and discerning. To subject them to this kind of censorship is an insult and an injustice, particularly considering the amount of money they spend to obtain a full chiropractic education.

Naturally, you will say your decision is not "censorship," but that is merely playing with words ‑

just as you play semantic games by saying that Dr. Riekeman was not "dismissed." Being put in a position where you have no choice but to resign is the same as being dismissed. And Palmer's reported refusal to allow him on campus to attend his daughter's graduation is another example of the type of vindictiveness Palmer is displaying toward the WCA. (If the reports are wrong, please let me know. We'll all be happy to see photos of Dr. Riekeman at the graduation ceremony.)

You also asked me: "Have you ever served at the pleasure of a Board of Directors ... Does the WCA have a Board of Directors to which you report? Does the WCA have an election of officers? Who are the other officers of the WCA? Were you elected by your membership?"

The WCA does, indeed, have a Board of Directors, currently comprised of six members including myself, Drs. Christopher Kent, Matthew McCoy and Veronica Gutierrez. In the past, Dr. Fred Barge was on the Board as well. Any one of us can be voted out of office by the others on the Board. Our members approve of the infrastructure of the organization and "vote" for us with their membership dues. Since WCA members have no problem with our procedures, why should you? Are we forcing doctors to join us or stay with us? Are we forcing Palmer students to join the student WCA? If they do not agree with the way we are structured, they are free to leave and join another group. Why do you feel so threatened by a non‑traditional hierarchy?

Finally, you asked if our positions on professional issues differ from those of the ICA and/or FSCO. Although we share many positions in common, we differ on several important issues. We all respect those differences, however, and don't let them stop us from working cooperatively on projects that help advance chiropractic. For instance, all three organizations held an extremely successful joint legislative day at the nation's capitol recently. More than 600 DCs, students and supporters met with members of Congress and other government officials.

But would it really matter if our positions were all identical? Would we forfeit the right to exist because we overlap in our positions? What about chiropractic colleges? They all teach about the same subjects and even use many of the same texts. Should all but one or two be forced to close down or merge? Personally, I think diversity and choice is a positive thing and should be encouraged, not discouraged.

Frankly, I think you touched on the heart of the matter when you stated that: "I am really not arbitrary in my opinion that the WCA doesn't bring anything new to discussion of unity in our profession. I have felt that way as long as WCA has existed, including the seven years that I served as President."

You made up your mind years ago about the WCA and have no intention of letting the facts get in the way of your opinions. The remarkable success the WCA has had through the years and the respect it has earned in the profession and with government bodies throughout the world means nothing to you because you have opposed us from the very start. The baggage you have brought with you to your position as President is filled with prejudice and hostility and you are allowing it to influence your decisions on academic freedom. I fail to see how you can justify that to your college, your students ‑ or to yourself.

Yours truly,

Terry A. Rondberg, DC

********