A NOTE ABOUT ETHICS
I thought ethics were the rulebook.
They're not.
Ethics are what you maintain when the institution abandons its own standards.
When documentation of harm becomes more threatening than the harm itself.
When accountability requests are reframed as attacks.
When maintaining boundaries makes you the problem.
I documented interactions. I communicated clearly. I held boundaries.
I expected good faith responses to legitimate concerns.
These should be unremarkable standards.
Instead, they made me what the institution considered an impossible adversary.
Not because I was unreasonable.
Not because I wanted conflict.
Not because I operated outside ethical guidelines.
But because —
I refused to abandon them when doing so became inconvenient for people with power.
This archive documents what happens when someone approaches institutional dysfunction with uncompromising ethical clarity.
It shows what retaliation looks like when deployed against someone whose only "weapon" is documented truth.
Every person in this archive had the opportunity to maintain the standards they claimed to uphold.
Every person chose the preservation of institutional impunity instead.
That choice — to abandon ethics when ethics became costly — is what this archive makes permanent.
I thought ethics were the rulebook.
I bet you did too.
What follows is proof that they're not —
and what happens when someone refuses to accept that corruption as normal.