Old September-28th-2005, 11:05 PM   #1
Gordon B
Registered User
 
Gordon B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 11,368
Speech Codes at Bucknell

Everybody is against this sort of thing, right? I don't know the writer, but his blog is called Brain-Terminal.com.

Don't Say These Words at Bucknell
By Evan Coyne Maloney
28 September 2005 @ 11:40AM
Two words. At Bucknell University, that's all it takes to get dragged into the President's Office for a half-hour discussion of word choice. And these aren't offensive words, at least not out here in the real world. But Bucknell apparently has a different definition of what is and is not acceptable.

On August 29th, the Bucknell University Conservatives Club sent out a campus-wide e-mail announcing an upcoming speaker: Major John Krenson, who had been in Afghanistan "hunting terrorists." Those two words--"hunting terrorists"--resulted in three students being called to Bucknell's Office of the President by Kathy Owens, the Executive Assistant to the President.

According to the students, when they arrived at the President's Office for the meeting, Ms. Owens held up a print-out of the offending e-mail and said "we have a problem here," telling the students that the words "hunting terrorists" were offensive. For the next half-hour, the three students were given a lecture on inappropriate phrasing.

(When contacted, Ms. Owens did acknowledge that the meeting took place, but refused to answer any questions about what transpired. She did not deny the account of the students.)

Last year, while collecting footage for my upcoming film Indoctrinate U, I noticed that the campus was plastered with flyers that screamed "vagina" in large block letters. Although some people might find these flyers offensive, it is protected speech at Bucknell--as it should be--but apparently the phrase "hunting terrorists" is not.

(Perhaps someone should remind Bucknell's administrators that the American soldiers who are "hunting terrorists" are fighting the very sort of misogynistic thugs who would gladly stone a woman to death for talking about her vagina in public.)

For years, Bucknell has denied that it has a speech code, the speech-stifling regulations that many schools use to punish political speech they don't like. But if Bucknell isn't in the business of restricting free speech, then why did these students have to spend 30 minutes listening to criticisms of the phrase "hunting terrorists"?

Most students I know would prefer not to spend their time defending their speech in front of highly-placed university administrators. By taking this action, the Bucknell administration is sending a signal to students: say only those things we approve of, or we will hassle you. The long-term effect will be that students will think twice before engaging in political speech that they know will be unpopular with the administration.

As an alumnus of Bucknell, this is all very depressing. Even more so because the recent appointment of Brian C. Mitchell as the new University President was met with optimism from students who have grown tired of fighting the constant battles against campus political correctness. Let's hope this incident is just a minor misstep in a new administration, and not a sign of things to come.
Gordon B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-28th-2005, 11:20 PM   #2
Pete C
Reevaluating @ 500k
 
Pete C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 31,314
Terrorists are people too.
Pete C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-28th-2005, 11:40 PM   #3
Rob C
Kills all threads!
 
Rob C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,217
Gee, I wonder if there might be any more to this story.
__________________
"The challenge of creative music has never been more important than in periods of profound unrest and realignment."--Anthony Braxton
Rob C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-28th-2005, 11:42 PM   #4
achilles
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon B
Everybody is against this sort of thing, right?.
Yes. It's anti-thetical to all enlightened notions of what a university should be. That said, these instances of idiocy are a lot rarer than some would have you believe (David Horowitz et al), and they are the least of what most people should be concerned with when it comes to the problems of our universities. What people should really be concerned with are the corporate values that have infected and in some ways utterly contamined higher learning.
  Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 01:29 AM   #5
crawjo
Be Afraid
 
crawjo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 11,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by achilles
What people should really be concerned with are the corporate values that have infected and in some ways utterly contamined higher learning.
Can you clarify what you mean by this statement?
crawjo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 01:59 AM   #6
achilles
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by crawjo
Can you clarify what you mean by this statement?
At more and more universities (my own especially) the emphasis is not on learning but training. Get 'em in, get 'em out, get 'em a job, don't worry if they are actually educated or care a whit about anything more than making a lot of money. Thus, General Education programs (which prominently feature the liberal arts) have been diluted because it's thought that it's better for students to specialize (ie: study only courses that pertain to their major).

University presidents are no longer educational visionaries but fundraisers. Most important to them is the endowment, and if it's easier to raise funds from alumni by shifting all available money to athletics and fancy buildings rather than academics, than so be it. Another focus of these fundraisers with Phds is their obsession with various magazine ratings (like US News) which are notoriously bad evaluations (and even corruptible).

More and more universities and even whole state systems are also being run by politicians rather than educators (see David Boren, Bob Kerrey, etc) who do not know anything whatsoever about teaching. And what have we seen throughout the country? The downsizing of faculties, done by employing more part-timers (who are scandously underpaid and often have no benefits), and widespread resistence to cost-of-living pay-raises and attacks on tenure.

I could go on. Okay, I will.

At some of the better research universities, science and medical programs have been undermined by corporate money (from big Pharma and the likes).

Okay, I'm tired and depressed.
  Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 07:24 AM   #7
Gordon B
Registered User
 
Gordon B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 11,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete C
Terrorists are people too.
I'm shocked that you've been described as glib!
Gordon B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 08:45 AM   #8
Monte Smith
************
 
Monte Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manchester United States of America
Posts: 15,521
Why did these students accept a meeting with the thought police and why weren't the offensive words "fuck" and "you" deployed?
Monte Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 08:50 AM   #9
Root Doctor
Middle Man
 
Root Doctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 6,302
Heaven forbid that college students be exposed to ideas that upset them. That might approximate learning.
Root Doctor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 08:53 AM   #10
Monte Smith
************
 
Monte Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manchester United States of America
Posts: 15,521
Exactly. Thomas Jefferson would never have accepted a rebuke from his tutors. He'd have been too busy out hunting vaginas.
Monte Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 09:12 AM   #11
rollhead
Quitting @ 10.4k
 
rollhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New York state
Posts: 11,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob C
Gee, I wonder if there might be any more to this story.

I suspect so. This kind of stuff has been a rightwing whipping horse for a long time. They conveniently forget to mention cases when the right has censured people on campuses. For example, a year or two ago, SUNY New Paltz put on a forum about sex and sexuality. The right had a hissy fit and managed to get the president fired. Of course, Gordon wouldnt' post anything like that because it doesn't conveniently fit in with his Rush Limbaugh/femiNazi/PC Police-State Weltanschauung.

There are PC police on all sides of the political spectrum.

And Achilles makes an excellent point on the influence of corprations on "academic freedom." This is another point that the rightwing conveniently ignores. It is probably because the right supports the corporate takeover of American universities:

Here is an interview with Jennifer Washburn, author of the book, University Inc: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education by Nick Schwellenbach, an investigator at the Project On Government Oversight (www.pogo.org).


The title of your book University, Inc. suggests that increasingly universities are acting like corporations themselves rather than simply having their research directed from the outside by corporations. Do you think this distinction is important in understanding the difference between universities in the past and those today? I ask this because critics tend to focus only on universities' relationships with outside corporations, rather than on what is happening inside the university.

Yes, I try to make this point very clearly in the book. It's not simply that outside companies are violating academic freedom or changing the direction of academic research, it's that the universities themselves are acting increasingly like for-profit enterprises. The real historical shift can be traced pretty clearly to the Bayh-Dole Act, passed by the US Congress in 1980, which gave universities automatic intellectual property rights to taxpayer-financed research.

The goal of the legislation was quite noble: to transfer technology to industry more quickly. By giving universities the right to own any inventions stemming from taxpayer-financed research, Congress hoped to encourage universities to license them to industry in exchange for royalties and other fees. So the Act created a monetary incentive for universities to commercialize their research. It was thought this would help boost US innovation at a time when we were facing growing competition from Germany and Japan.

The problem was that it introduced a profit motive into the heart of the university that was very distinct from anything what we had seen previously. Universities have long had relationships with private industry - professors consulted for industry, graduates took jobs in industry - but never before was the university itself trying to profit off of campus-based research. And so that's the real change that happened in 1980.

You mention economic competitiveness, but can you more fully flesh out the rationale behind the Bayh-Dole Act?

In the late '70s the US economy was stagnating, so the question was: "How is it that a country spending so much money on research is falling behind in innovation with other countries beating us out?" Congress wanted to know, "What's happening with all this taxpayer-funded research and why isn't it stimulating economic growth?"

Unfortunately at the time, Congress was putting out very faulty statistics which I discuss in the book. There was a statistic - you hear it repeated even today (the Economist magazine recently cited it) - that there were 28,000 publicly-funded inventions essentially sitting in the government's basement and only 5% percent of them ever got commercialized. It turns out these statistics were totally erroneous. There was a selection bias. Today you often hear people say that, prior to Bayh-Dole, academic inventions just simply sat on the shelf. This is not true.

Academic knowledge was transferred to industry through a variety of means - through consulting, through informal relationships with private companies. Patenting and licensing was not a very common way to transfer knowledge to industry. Most of the knowledge was transferred through the public domain through open publication.

So what happened [around the time of Bayh-Dole] was that Congress started to increasingly expect universities to prove that they were transferring their knowledge to industry, and one of the easiest ways to [prove this] was through patents.

Has technology transfer actually increased? It seems that perhaps in measurable ways - number of patents licensed - it has, but what about these informal means of transfer? Has anyone tried to quantify these informal mechanisms of transfer?

Right, it is very different to measure whether technology-transfer has increased. We just don't have the data we need to measure that effectively. In a survey published in 2002 by Wesley Cohen and Richard Nelson, industry technology professionals were asked what are the most important mechanisms by which you get information from academia? To an overwhelming extent, industry said that open channels like publication and consulting were the most important channels. Patenting and licensing ranked way at the bottom across nearly all industries, except pharmaceuticals.

So putting so much emphasis on patenting and licensing, as the Bayh-Dole Act did, may actually be detrimental because universities may be imposing proprietary restrictions on research that would be more broadly used if it was transferred through the public domain.

Has patenting and licensing research even paid off for universities?

No. The truth is the vast majority of universities are not in fact profiting off of their licensing and commercial activity. The Association of University Technology Managers constantly trucks out these impressive numbers showing that universities have generated $1.3 billion off of commercialized research. But the overwhelming majority of the profits go to less than two dozen schools. And the rest of the schools are barely breaking even or losing money on these commercial activities.

Even when schools do make money, does the student population or the faculty in general receive any of this money?

This is one of the things that is such a shame. The few schools that do make sizable profits, do invest some of this money back into new research. But, increasingly, governors and state legislators are putting enormous pressure on all universities to become "engines of economic growth" in their local regions. They are pushing universities to spin-off the next Silicon Valley in their own backyards. They're telling universities, "We're giving you all this money and we want you to generate high-tech jobs, we want you to spin-off companies." Meanwhile, the states are gutting the general funds for higher education that actually go toward teaching and educating undergraduates.

So students are not really seeing any benefits. In fact the share of state funding for public universities has declined by one-third since 1980. States continue to target money toward high-tech commercial activities on campus. But, meanwhile, because of cuts in the state's general funding, students are being forced to pay higher tuition fees.

Rising tuition costs deter students from being able to access higher education, which is a great shame since most of the good paying jobs we have left in this country require a college degree.

So you're saying that not only is state support for higher education stagnating or decreasing as a percentage of university funding (in absolute terms the amount of state spending may still increase), but that more and more of that state support is then being earmarked for specific commercial projects rather than used as general educational funds?

That's right. The stem cell initiative in California is a good example. Taxpayers are paying $3 billion for stem cell research in California. Now I'm a supporter of stem cell research. The problem is that even as the state is pouring $3 billion into this one specific area of technological research, state funding for higher education in general is being cut forcing tuition costs to rise as a result. So it's that kind of skewing of priorities I find troubling. The core undergraduate center of the university is being under-funded and ever more money is poured into commercial activities.

Well, in general, why should students, faculty and the general public be worried about corporatization of the university?

There are many reasons. We have to remember that universities perform so many vital functions. First and foremost, they educate the next generation of citizens and world leaders. Because of the new corporate orientation, universities are misdirecting many of their resources and they're increasingly eliminating full-time professorships and farming out the teaching to graduate students and adjunct professors who are paid meager salaries, with few, if any, benefits and no job security. Close to 50% of faculty who teach in higher education now teach on a part-time basis.

Students are being neglected. I think this is the first thing that should make everyone quite concerned.

The second issue is that we rely on universities to provide us with disinterested research that the public can trust. Nowhere is this clearer than in the medical arena. Historically universities played a very important role in testing the new drugs that came out to see if they were safe for us. Universities would accept money from private industry to do those studies, but they conducted the studies at arms length from the drug industry. Now universities are riddled with financial conflicts of interest. Universities themselves now hold equity in the companies that are sponsoring the research, they hold intellectual property interests in the drugs and products being tested, professors consult for the companies that are funding their research, the professors sit on the companies' speakers bureaus and are flown around to fancy resorts on the companies' tab. The public now has no place to turn to for independent expertise to evaluate these drugs.

The FDA is having trouble staffing their advisory panels with people who don't have financial interests [in the drugs evaluated] because so many academics have these sideline consulting arrangements.

Could you give us some examples where conflicts of interest have led to problems? Are there any "horror stories" out there?

The journal Nature Neuroscience invited Charles Nemeroff, chair of the psychiatry department at Emory University, to review about two dozen psychiatric treatments. The journal expected that this eminent academic psychiatrist would be giving his expert advice based on good science. Well, later it came to light that three of the treatments that he endorsed in his article were ones that he had a direct financial interest in, including a lithium patch that he owned the patent to. None of this was disclosed in the article.

One of the most devastating stories is what happened with the anti-depressants. In Chapter Five ["Are Conflicts of Interest Hazardous to Our Health?"] of my book I go into this further. Essentially all of the original research that came out about the SSRI drugs - Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, which include Paxil and Zoloft and Prozac - said that these drugs were safe and effective for children. But when the FDA went back and looked at the raw data from those same clinical trials - when it actually evaluated the complete raw data from the trials - the agency found that the SSRI's actually increased the rate of suicidal behavior and thinking in children two-fold as compared to kids who were just taking a placebo, a sugar pill.

So the question arises: "Well how did that negative data get suppressed?" We don't for sure, but we do know that the academics who authored those early published studies had extensive financial ties to companies manufacturing the drugs. We also know that in many instances the universities signed contracts that allowed the industry sponsor to control the raw data generated by those studies. The professors did not actually control the data from their own research!

So are you also saying that secrecy inside the university has increased? If so, what are its effects?

Yes, many analytic studies have come out showing that industry-funded research is associated with greater delays in publication and secrecy. When researchers are funded by industry they are more likely to withhold information from their academic peers.

It's important to remember that traditionally universities were a very open realm for practicing science. Now there is a lot of concern about industry money making the environment more secretive, more proprietary, less open. I interviewed a top cancer researcher who's been asked to sign agreements to gain access to data that require him to keep the results of his research secret for up to ten years.

Economists, legal scholars and historians of technological innovation are concerned that if universities mimic industry and make publicly-funded research proprietary, it could stifle innovation over the long term. It could clog the pipeline for future discovery.

When researchers continually find they can't gain access to basic research tools, or it is very costly and cumbersome to do so, it makes the scientific process more inefficient and it has the potential to slow innovation over the long-term.

Historically external regulation by the government has been opposed by universities quite vigorously. The argument is that government regulation violates university autonomy. Can you tell us why oversight is needed now and can you answer the universities' argument about autonomy?

I do understand why universities are wary of having government come in and impose conflict-of-interest regulations on them. Obviously, there is good reason for universities to be cautious about government interference in their affairs. But I do find it very ironic that, even as conflicts of interests mount and industry interference in their research grows - these institutions can, with a straight face, say that they are preserving their autonomy by rejecting federal conflict of interest regulations. Universities are far more wary of the government than they are of industry or commercialism, which is profoundly distorting their mission.

Also, it's not conflicts of interest we have to tackle. We have to get all this commercial patenting and licensing activity out of the heart of the university. When the Bayh-Dole Act was passed there were a few dissenting voices. But Joshua Lederberg, a Nobel-prize winning scientist, did raise some prescient questions about whether universities should actually be handling all this commercial activity themselves. He expressed concern that it would corrupt the universities' mission too much.

My recommendation is for the federal government to create third-party licensing bodies, in various regions of the country - these could be private contractors or pseudo governmental agencies - which would assume responsibility for the universities' technology transfer and commercialization needs. These offices would be staffed with the best technology-licensing experts, a team of top lawyers, and people with strong business backgrounds. Whenever a professor-inventor had a research discovery that he or she wanted to see commercialized, he or she would work with this office to see about making that happen. Centralizing these functions would make it much easier for industry to keep track of new university inventions. It would also free the universities and their professors to focus on what they do best: cutting-edge research and teaching.

The profits generated by these pseudo-governmental entities would be ploughed back into new, federal, peer-reviewed research grants. Inventors would also get a percentage, as would the inventor's institution.

Has this been done before? Is there any historical precedent for your proposal?

There is. Before Bayh-Dole, many universities were wary of engaging in anything that smacked of commercialism. Even schools like MIT contracted out all of their patenting and licensing needs to a third-party, a company called the Research Corporation. Some people say the Research Corporation didn't do good enough job. But if these third-party offices I'm proposing were well staffed, and they were drawing on research discoveries stemming from multiple institutions, they would certainly function far better than the system we currently have. A majority of our colleges and universities simply do not have the financial resources, the level of cutting edge research, or the professional expertise needed to do this technology licensing and commercialization well. It is extremely costly and wasteful to have so many individual campuses pouring money into this, without much success.

What can we - the students, faculty, and the public - do?

It is critical that we continue to insist on strong public support for higher education. When tuition costs rise, parents and students need to hold their universities and their public officials accountable. The public has to realize that this taxpayer funding is vital to preserving the university's public mission. Without it, universities have no choice but to turn to industry as supplicants. This does not put them in a good bargaining position, and it gives industry far too much control over their research and their affairs.

We call on these institutions to remain dedicated to the public interest, not merely the interests of private industry. We should be skeptical when state legislators tell us they are funding a new biomedical center on campus, while gutting the share of the state budget that goes to funding undergraduate education. We should be especially skeptical when legislators tell us that the university is going to spin off new high-tech companies and stimulate high-tech jobs, since this is not the role of the university.

Faculty and students also need to do more digging to examine what's going on in their own campuses, and expose it. Remember, universities are vulnerable on this score. They depend on the public for such a huge part of their support: research grants, student aid, state subsidies, tax breaks. They have a lot invested in continuing to be seen as independent institutions dedicated to education, disinterested research, and strong academic values. In theory, this should make them more responsive when problems are exposed since they don't like to be seen in a bad public light.

Unfortunately, universities are often very tight-lipped when it comes to this kind of information so faculty and students need to be tenacious to break open the locks. They should insist on full and open disclosure of any contract that the university signs. They should investigate current contracts, and make sure that they fully respect the academic culture, protect academic freedom, and do not permit industry excessive control over the research process or publication of the final results. The same is true of conflicts of interest. Professors' financial ties should be made public and easily accessible.

It is only by opening up this process that we can have a true and genuine debate about what is an appropriate level of university-industry engagement.

Last edited by rollhead; September-29th-2005 at 09:21 AM.
rollhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 09:22 AM   #12
rollhead
Quitting @ 10.4k
 
rollhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New York state
Posts: 11,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monte Smith
Exactly. Thomas Jefferson would never have accepted a rebuke from his tutors. He'd have been too busy out hunting vaginas.
I think you have been smoking more than expensive cigars.
rollhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 09:51 AM   #13
Gordon B
Registered User
 
Gordon B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 11,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollhead
Of course, Gordon wouldnt' post anything like that because it doesn't conveniently fit in with his Rush Limbaugh/femiNazi/PC Police-State Weltanschauung.

There are PC police on all sides of the political spectrum.
Waggoner, there you go again with your McCarthyism. You are associating me with Rush Limbaugh and his positions without having the slightest idea if I like or dislike his opinions. Some of the more intelligent people here who actually read my posts know that I'm not a Rush fan at all. I don't like Coulter, either so you've been forewarned.

I'm against PC police on both sides. Are you?
Gordon B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 10:17 AM   #14
Doc Martin
Imagine All The People
 
Doc Martin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollhead
I think you have been smoking more than expensive cigars.
I know I have. I have great difficulty picturing Monte on "Chronic"

Be that as it may.

Dearest Ms. Owens,
Please read the First Amendment (posted below for your convenience), you may want to read it a few times. If, it's good enough for Congress, its good enough for you, darling.

Sincerely,

Doc Martin

PS Wise Up Honey.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Doc Martin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 10:41 AM   #15
rollhead
Quitting @ 10.4k
 
rollhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New York state
Posts: 11,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon B
so you've been forewarned.

I'm against PC police on both sides. Are you?
There you go again, with your veiled threats.

I suggest that you only attack the "PC Police" when they are coming from the left -- much like those people you don't like -- Limbaugh and Coulter.

Gordon -- what you don't understand is that an increasing number of people in this nation are going to stop taking the war on the middle class and the working class by the people you support in a supine position.

The lies of the rightwing are what got us in a $200 billion war that has cost us nearly 2,000 lives.

The right attacks dissent at all levels -- yet I have yet to hear you defend the left-wings protest demonstrations.

Indeed you attack the left's anti-war protests in another thread here.

That is because you -- much like many of the people who espouse your views -- speak out of both sides of your mouth.

When it is convenient for you to defend "free speech" you do, but you didn't hesitate to join in a chorus of critics of Saturday's anti-war demonstrations.

Clearly, you don't see that is being inconsistent or illogical, because you are driven by ideology -- not a serious effort to get involved in serious discourse.

If I am "closed minded" when it comes to your politics, it is because the evidence OVERWHELMING supports the notion that the right is profoundly destructive of our democracy and the well being of most Americans.

If I am "close minded," for my unwillingness to listen to the piches of snakeoil salesmen who have burned me time and time again, then -- so be it -- I am close minded.

Like Pete C says -- the time for polite political discussion over tea and crumpets in Republican Country Clubs is over.

As far as your "forewarning," in the words of you hero, I say, "BRING IT ON."

I am not intimidated by people much tougher, intelligent and well informed than you, so why should I be frighted?

Last edited by rollhead; September-29th-2005 at 10:49 AM.
rollhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 06:18 PM   #16
Gordon B
Registered User
 
Gordon B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 11,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon B

I'm against PC police on both sides. Are you?
Still waiting for Waggoner to answer.
Gordon B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 06:23 PM   #17
Paul B
___---___
 
Paul B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hedges
Posts: 3,242
I'm afraid I have to agree with Gordon on this one. I don't understand how the words in question could possibly we considered offensive and worth banning. A university should use a speech code only in extreme cases (i.e. racially offensive slogans, etc.)--and everybody would likely agree about what those might be.

Bye-ya
Paul B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 06:44 PM   #18
Rob C
Kills all threads!
 
Rob C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul B
I don't understand how the words in question could possibly we considered offensive and worth banning.
Hence my guess that there is more to this story than has been reported above.
__________________
"The challenge of creative music has never been more important than in periods of profound unrest and realignment."--Anthony Braxton
Rob C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 07:05 PM   #19
jeff54
Registered User
 
jeff54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Land of Nod
Posts: 927
This is the account of the student that reported this.

PRESIDENT’S OFFICE DOESN’T LIKE “HUNTING
TERRORISTS”
On August 29, the BUCC sent a campus email to
advertise for their first lecture of the semester (you
read about it in the previous Newsbrief), which
mentioned that its speaker, Major John Krenson, had
been in Afghanistan “hunting terrorists” after 9/11.
Two days later, three Conservatives Club officers,
myself include, were summoned to the Office of the
President by Executive Assistant to the President,
Kathy Owens.
The meeting began
cordially, but then Dr.
Owens held up the
aforementioned campus
email. Pointing to the
phrase “hunting terrorists”
Dr. Owens declared, “We
have a problem,” and
explained that the term was
inappropriate. We reminded
Dr. Owens that Webster
defines “hunting” as a verb
meaning “pursue; harry”
and “look for; search.”
We also informed her
that the phrase “hunting
terrorists” is a term used
commonly in the mainstream
media, and noted that
newspapers and magazines
from The Washington Post
to The Economist used the
term, and that last summer
the Boston Globe (President
Mitchell’s hometown paper)
said this about John Edwards’ Democratic National
Convention address: “he generally struck a serious
tone, spending as much time on security issues such
as nuclear proliferation and hunting terrorists as on his
trademark populist themes (emphasis added).”
Dr. Owens retorted that “this isn’t about semantics,”
(even though her original complaint was with the
semantics) and alluded to a “gentleman’s agreement”
I had made with President Mitchell to make him
aware of our advertising when he cosponsored
lectures with us. President Mitchell however, had
not agreed to cosponsor the lecture about the War on
Terror.
It is still not certain what exactly about “hunting
terrorists” President Mitchell’s Office found
inappropriate.
DOMINIC RUPPRECHT ’07
jeff54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 07:08 PM   #20
Monte Smith
************
 
Monte Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Manchester United States of America
Posts: 15,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul B
I don't understand how the words in question could possibly we considered offensive and worth banning.
Maybe they were accompanied by photos of beloved Arab-American celebrities, thus insinuating that all Muslims are evil.










Just speculating.
Monte Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 09:03 PM   #21
GoodSpeak
Next year....
 
GoodSpeak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The San Joaquin Valley, CA
Posts: 23,908
Gordon,

Were the "vagina" fliers promoting the play by that name?


If so, maybe that is how the university justifies it.
GoodSpeak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 09:12 PM   #22
crawjo
Be Afraid
 
crawjo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 11,469
The story doesn't really surprise me. It's no secret that the universities have become a true liberal stronghold. No paranoia here, it's rather obvious to anyone who has taken classes in the humanities at almost any major public university. While they are liberal, I think the university's desire for "diversity" makes them skittish about any language that could be deemed "offensive." Since they tend to come from a liberal mindset, university officials will be more likely to spot phrases like "hunting terrorists" as offensive.

That said, I think conservatives overshoot the mark when they decry the downfall of free speech on college campuses. As someone who ran a highly offensive satire magazine during my undergraduate days, I can say with some confidence that you can get away with A LOT of stuff, even if the upper echelons of the university call you into their offices and lecture you. That's not suppression of free speech by my book. Free speech is a right worth defending, and students should defend their rights, and not just complain to the press when somebody tells them something they don't like. Grow some balls, already.
crawjo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 10:08 PM   #23
Paul B
___---___
 
Paul B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hedges
Posts: 3,242
I'm not sure about the "liberal stronghold" thing--that notion seems overcooked to me--but otherwise I agree with you. And I do think this is one area where liberals have gone too far, i.e. trying to control something to the point of absurdity, as if any offense to any person of any gender, nationality, or sexual persuasion is somehow a huge sin. Generally speaking, college kids (as you indicate from your own experience) can handle themselves quite well without the administration playing mind-control games. Granted, this sort of thing is probably worse at public universities. But even at Berkeley in the old days when I was there, things were never this lame. Times have changed for the worse.

Bye-ya

Last edited by Paul B; September-29th-2005 at 10:08 PM.
Paul B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 10:22 PM   #24
Captain Hate
Game On
 
Captain Hate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dar al Harb
Posts: 8,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by achilles
At more and more universities (my own especially) the emphasis is not on learning but training. Get 'em in, get 'em out, get 'em a job, don't worry if they are actually educated or care a whit about anything more than making a lot of money. Thus, General Education programs (which prominently feature the liberal arts) have been diluted because it's thought that it's better for students to specialize (ie: study only courses that pertain to their major).
It's difficult for me to count the number of times that I've teed off on co-workers (generally fairly smart ones) that have griped that their kids aren't taking enough courses related to their major. I always tell them that their college experience should be to teach them how to think in a variety of disciplines and that it shouldn't be an expensive trade school that they're attending. An epiphanal moment for me was reading an op-ed piece in the WSJ in the 70's urging employers to hire applicants with a degree in the Humanities; that their breadth of training will give you a workforce that is intellectually diverse and will be able to react to all situations.

I deliberately didn't copy your paragraph on university presidents. It's been my opinion that Universities would be better served by appointing ultra-high priced hookers as their Presidents. The requisite job skills are identical and at least the male alumni would have somebody that they wouldn't mind being seen with.

Last edited by Captain Hate; September-29th-2005 at 10:23 PM.
Captain Hate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 11:00 PM   #25
Dennis Gonzalez
Peace and Light!
 
Dennis Gonzalez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 6,128
Seems to me like Kathy Owens is an Al-Qaeda Lovin' Liberal. Let's not forget Major John Krenson amidst all this Liberal Commie talk. Somebody's gotta kill the Barbarians.
Dennis Gonzalez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-29th-2005, 11:27 PM   #26
bluenoter
Registered Osprey
 
bluenoter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: DC (Taxation Without Representation)
Posts: 8,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Martin
Dearest Ms. Owens,

Please read the First Amendment (posted below for your convenience), you may want to read it a few times. If, it's good enough for Congress, its good enough for you, darling.

Sincerely,

Doc Martin

PS Wise Up Honey.
Charming. What would you write if she were a man?


Last edited by bluenoter; September-29th-2005 at 11:28 PM.
bluenoter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-30th-2005, 12:02 AM   #27
achilles
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Hate
It's difficult for me to count the number of times that I've teed off on co-workers (generally fairly smart ones) that have griped that their kids aren't taking enough courses related to their major. I always tell them that their college experience should be to teach them how to think in a variety of disciplines and that it shouldn't be an expensive trade school that they're attending. An epiphanal moment for me was reading an op-ed piece in the WSJ in the 70's urging employers to hire applicants with a degree in the Humanities; that their breadth of training will give you a workforce that is intellectually diverse and will be able to react to all situations.

I deliberately didn't copy your paragraph on university presidents. It's been my opinion that Universities would be better served by appointing ultra-high priced hookers as their Presidents. The requisite job skills are identical and at least the male alumni would have somebody that they wouldn't mind being seen with.
Right on!
And anyone can tell you that the most creative thinkers in any profession are people with a variety of interests and passions.
  Reply With Quote
Old September-30th-2005, 01:01 AM   #28
rollhead
Quitting @ 10.4k
 
rollhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New York state
Posts: 11,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon B
Still waiting for Waggoner to answer.
I don't answer fraudulent questions from frauds.

The so called "terrorist hunter" that Bucknell had a problem with -- "Major" John Krenson -- was in fact a paid political speaker from the right wing organization, Young America's Foundation -- which is in the business of attacking universities and the press.

They aren't honest brokers -- I am sure they would do anything within their power to attack and humiliate the Bucknell University administration.

This Kathy Owens probably had a legitimate concern that the alleged "terrorist hunting" "major" might have been a solidier of fortune or some other kind of gun-toting nut case. She probably had a few questions, and that was seized upon to attack her as "censoring" them.

Gordon -- since I suspect that you have never served in the military -- you should know that firearms, such as M-16s, are dangerous things. You wouldn't want a copy of one of them on a college campus. And because rightwingers know that college campuses are prime recruiting grounds for terrorists, maybe Kathy Owens thought that the good major would be arriving on campus packing heat, wanting to hunt himself some liberal/terrorists.

Unfortunately, Gordon didn't post any information on this that wasn't from something other than a suspect source of information.

He must get a lot of the nonsense he posts here from Young America's Foundation -- I see on its website that they are claiming that the people who marched in the anti-war protest Saturday are all in bed with Al Quada.

I suppose because the right wing couldn't convince people that anti-war protestors were athiest-commie pinkos ANSWER members, now they are trying to convince them that protesters are Muslim extremist jihadist.

Gordon -- I am still waiting for you to post something on this that is credible.

Last edited by rollhead; September-30th-2005 at 01:18 AM.
rollhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-30th-2005, 01:16 AM   #29
rollhead
Quitting @ 10.4k
 
rollhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New York state
Posts: 11,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by crawjo
The story doesn't really surprise me. It's no secret that the universities have become a true liberal stronghold. .
Nonsense, Crawjo. And if you'd bother to look in your own backyard, you would see it was nonsense.

NYS Gov. George Pataki has appointed rightwing political hacks throughout the SUNY system:

http://www.highereducation.org/cross...701-suny.shtml

Politicizing University Governance
Conservatives appointed by Governor Pataki and Mayor Giuliani now control governing boards of New York’s public universities


By Jon Marcus

If the meeting in the Albany, New York conference room had been a university lecture, the professor would have stopped to reprimand the class for not paying attention. Half the people in the audience were frantically reading, instead of listening to the discussion.

But these weren't students who hadn't done their homework. They were presidents from campuses of the State University of New York. And they had just been handed a proposal for a core curriculum requiring 30 credit hours of classes in ten subjects, including math, foreign language, communications, natural science, social science and American, western and other world civilizations. Even some of the members of the SUNY Board of Trustees, which was voting on the plan that day, had seen it for the first time less than a week before.

The core curriculum was being pushed by conservative advocacy groups and by think tanks including the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, the proprivatization Manhattan Institute, and the Empire Foundation for Policy Research, an arm of the anti-tax group CHANGE-NY (Citizens Helping Achieve New Growth and Employment in New York), which is closely tied to Republican Governor George Pataki. One of the proposal's principal architects was a founding member of CHANGE-NY named Candace de Russy, who Pataki had appointed to the board of trustees. There had been little or no input from the faculty.

It was a pivotal moment in the contentious process through which the governor had gained control of the 16-member board of trustees. Within 13 months after Pataki took office in 1995, his largely conservative appointees comprised a majority, driving out then-chancellor Thomas Bartlett and pushing for reducing state subsidies, privatizing graduate schools, raising admission standards, and eliminating courses in English as a second language.

When a sexuality conference at the SUNY campus in New Paltz won national notoriety for including presentations about the use of sex toys, Pataki's trustees rejected a review that said the conference was within the bounds of academic inquiry, and they called for the firing of New Paltz President Roger Bowen. "Never in our wildest dreams could we have imagined that a New Paltz women's studies conference would create this kind of stir," said Susan Lehrer, who coordinated the event. "It wasn't that the content of the conference was so dramatically different as that the political climate was."


Roscoe Brown, former president of Bronx Community College, now heads a new advocacy group called Friends of CUNY.
At least one trustee demanded Bowen's resignation again the next year for allowing a performance of The Vagina Monologues on his campus. "The trustees weren't always the best" before Pataki, one former SUNY president observed. "But they did serve as buffers against outside interference. Now they're conduits for it." And Bowen, in a closed-door meeting with members of the SUNY faculty union, said, "It appears that every new member of the SUNY Board of Trustees appointed over the past six or seven years has passed a political litmus test. They have had to demonstrate their bona fides as Republican Party members or as 'Pataki Democrats.'"

In the end, the core curriculum was passed by a vote of ten to three. SUNY faculty responded with an unprecedented declaration of no confidence in the trustees. The board had "failed in its responsibilities by allowing ideological views to shape academic decisions, failing to advocate for strong financial support for SUNY, (and) failing to conduct fair and open searches for senior administrators," the declaration said.

SUNY had become the definitive battleground in a culture war between liberals and conservatives, a cautionary tale for other universities where boards of trustees have begun to pursue far more intrusive political agendas than in the past, while activist organizations such as the National Association of Scholars and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni have become more influential.

Public higher education in particular has become a reform target of conservatives. Core curricula like New York's also have been proposed in Virginia and in Pennsylvania, where state Education Secretary Eugene Hickok, Jr. has questioned the academic rigor of the curriculum and teacher-education programs, and where Hickok, an appointee of Republican Governor Tom Ridge, has a seat on the governing boards of each state university.


A women’s studies conference at SUNY New Paltz, including presentations about the use of sex toys, brought seething criticism from conservatives.
Florida has handed over control of public universities to individual boards appointed by Republican Governor Jeb Bush. That state's commissioner of education, Charlie Crist, has called for replacing tenure with a pay-for-performance system, attacked administrators at Florida Atlantic University for allowing a play in which a Christ-like character is portrayed as a homosexual, and declared that academic freedom is "the final refuge in which professors hide when confronted with the absurdity and ignorance of their decisions."

Meanwhile, in New York City, combative Republican Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was transforming the City University of New York on the same timetable as Pataki's SUNY makeover, appointing trustees who backed his plan for raising admissions standards and ending remedial programs for many students. CUNY's board also is now considering a core curriculum.

So pronounced is this trend that the Association of Governing Boards adopted a report in April complaining that "external pressures have led some trustees and political leaders to abandon long-accepted principles of citizen trusteeship. Some believe board members should be responsive to narrow interests; others use their trusteeships inappropriately to advance personal visibility, aspirations or policy goals; still others fail to grasp that trustees are responsible for seeking consensus and acting collectively as a board, and not as individuals."

Nonsense, said de Russy, of the SUNY board. She said too many other university boards of trustees "have ceded their roles as final guarantors of institutional integrity. Many see themselves primarily as fundraisers or cheerleaders. Often they do not set clear educational goals. They don't even rigorously select or review their CEOs." Intervention by trustees like SUNY's represents "a reclamation of normal oversight that's to be expected," de Russy said. "Trustees have ceded too much lawful and necessary oversight to presidents and (faculty) councils. The public is demanding higher standards. We have seen it dramatically at the KÐ12 level. It shouldn't be surprising that that same urge for accountability would hit the higher education level."

But Richard Novak, director of the governing boards' association Center for Public Higher Education Trusteeship and Governance, said the organization's declaration was "a reminder to members that they need to adhere to good principles. There have been reports of the greater politicization of board members. Some of the stuff is pretty egregious in some places."

Novak was speaking generally, but the "examples of common pressures" cited in the association's report could have come directly from New York, where Pataki and Giuliani have made no secret of their desire to change the universities. "If you were running a business, you would invent this system if you didn't want it to be successful," Giuliani has said. He said CUNY, the largest urban university in America, with 200,000 students, was so bad it should be "blown up" and begun again.

The university practically did blow up, figuratively speaking, when after three decades of open or nearly open admission, Giuliani and Pataki appointed enough members of the CUNY Board of Trustees to essentially end remedial programs at most of the system's senior colleges. The move followed a report that found significant problems, including that 72 percent of senior college freshmen and 87 percent of community college freshman had failed one or more of CUNY's three placement exams.

"If a student cannot read, a college education is wasted on him," says Heather Mac Donald, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute and a frequent critic of the university who is a member of the mayor's task force on CUNY. "Reading is the barest minimum requirement. These tests hardly require students to demonstrate anything but the most basic skills, in fact, skills that would probably be considered still too elementary if anyone were honest. What is unfair to students is to admit them to academic programs for which they are unprepared, and have them waste their time barely hanging on. Let us mention the taxpayers' interest as well: It is perfectly appropriate for taxpayers to expect that their subsidy for students' education be spent on students prepared to take full advantage of that education."

Hundreds of professors, students, and alumni testified against the proposal to eliminate remediation, but Pataki speeded up the background check necessary to name the trustee who would become the ninth and deciding vote in favor of phasing out remedial classes over three years at all 11 CUNY senior colleges. All five CUNY trustees appointed by Giuliani, and four of the six appointed by Pataki, voted in favor of ending remediation. Even as the decision was being deliberated, 23 people were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct for allegedly disrupting the meeting, or for refusing to leave, including Edward Sullivan, a Democrat who chairs the state Assembly's education committee, in what the state Committee on Open Government later said was a violation of the public meeting law.

Even some of Pataki's appointees were left uneasy by the decision. One, John Morning, accused the governor and Giuliani of political interference to ensure that remediation would be ended. "Left to its own devices and its own conscience, this board would not have taken that step," Morning said. "It's worse than that," said Sullivan: "The mayor directs them as to how to vote. The mayor and the governor should absent themselves from the day-to-day workings of the board."

But Herman Badillo, a close advisor to Giuliani, who Pataki was soon to name as chairman of the board of trustees (and who stepped down in June to run for mayor himself), said: "Anyone who ignores the mayor and the governor is a fool. The money comes from the mayor and the governor and the policies come from the mayor and the governor. They are the top elected officials."

That point was not lost on Giuliani, whose governing style sometimes has included the use of his budgetary clout, most famously, his threat to evict the Brooklyn Museum of Art for refusing to cancel a controversial art show. Giuliani said he would withhold $79.4 million in funding to CUNY if it failed to require a qualifying test of entering students who took remedial courses. A state Supreme Court justice later ruled that the mayor had exceeded his authority, and that such decisions should be left to educators, but the CUNY board imposed the tests anyway.

Giuliani also promised to withhold $110 million in city funds from CUNY community colleges if they didn't require an 80 percent attendance rate. "If [the students] don't show up to be educated, why are we subsidizing their education?" the mayor asked. In April, Giuliani threatened to withhold a quarter of the CUNY budget unless the remaining remedial training for incoming students is privatized, and an outside company hired to review testing standards.

Pataki, too, has used the power of the purse. As a candidate in 1995, he criticized the state Education Department as "a bloated bureaucracy." Last year, he cut its staff, stripped it of oversight of private and public colleges, and transferred its library and archives to his control. He also took away authority over the charter school application process and split it between his SUNY trustees and the Board of Regents, whose members are appointed by the Democrat-controlled state Legislature (although Pataki has said he ultimately wants the power to select the regents' chancellor and nominate prospective regents).


SUNY New Paltz President Roger Bowen, under fire for permitting sexual topics to be discussed on campus, says he is “not in the mainstream, at least not in New York at this time.”
Among other charter schools the SUNY board approved is the Rochester Leadership Academy, which teaches students about creationism as a scientifically based theory competing with the theory of evolution. (SUNY trustees now are considering the concept of charter colleges, an idea being pushed by the conservative National Association of Scholars, which would operate like charter schools and get a share of the public higher education budget. Faculty say the concept is a way to privatize public higher education and end tenure.)

If there were threats before the fact, there also has been retribution after. President Bowen, at New Paltz, has reportedly been denied a pay raise and encouraged to leave. "I strongly believe partisan politics have no place in higher education," he told the student newspaper. "But I am not in the mainstream, at least not in New York at this time."

Vincent Aceto, a widely respected 40-year faculty veteran at the University at Albany, was turned down by the SUNY trustees for a distinguished service professorship, the university's highest honor, after leading the no-confidence vote against them during the core curriculum controversy. Aceto, a professor of information science, finally received the honor after the incident was widely publicized. A member of the CUNY board who voted against the mayor's choice for president of Hunter College was removed by Giuliani and replaced by a deputy mayor. "These are world-class universities, and look at the pettiness that's gone on," said William Scheuerman, president of United University Professions, the SUNY faculty union.

Many people close to the governor and the mayor have been given university appointments. The aforementioned nominee to head up Hunter College was Jennifer Raab, who chaired Giuliani's Landmarks Commission and was issues director of his 1989 mayoral campaign. She was installed despite the fact that Matthew Goldstein, the CUNY chancellor installed by Giuliani and Pataki, preferred another candidate. Trustees acknowledged that they had been pressured by the mayor and the governor; one, the Reverend Michael C. Crimmins, protested "the outside political intimidation." Students, faculty and staff at Hunter issued a resolution of no confidence in the board of trustees because of Raab's selection.


Hunter College political scientist Kenneth Sherrill fears “the universities are now politicized forever.”
Despite such opposition, at least four Giuliani deputies or former deputies are now at CUNY, including one who was named to head its research foundation, one who is serving as a labor consultant, and two who are on the board of trustees.

"No one who works for city or state governments should be on the board of trustees," said Roscoe Brown, former president of Bronx Community College and now chairman of a new advocacy group called Friends of CUNY. "What has happened now is that because of the ideological positions of the mayor and also the governor, the initiation of policies has come from outside of the chancellor and the presidents, which is really contrary to the way universities should operate."

Gerald A. Kitzmann, a New Paltz physics professor and representative to that school's faculty senate, compares the situation to the administration of the military. "We have the very best military in the world because we have been able to balance the civilian and military worlds in this country," Kitzmann said. "Can't we at least try to do the same for public higher educational institutions by having persons appointed to the boards of trustee with non-political agendas and knowledge of higher education based on their experience?"

Giuliani's former head of health and hospitals was made dean of health sciences at CUNY; one of his lawyers is the university system's outside counsel; and a consultant to the mayor's campaign committee was given two major CUNY contracts. Giuliani's former press secretary even got a job as an adjunct instructor at CUNY's Baruch College.

There also has been pressure to hire candidates preferred by the mayor and the governor for major posts. Giuliani and Pataki announced the nomination of Goldstein to be CUNY chancellor before the search committee even knew about it. The committee, which had been looking for a new chancellor for almost two years, was allowed to discuss the mayor's nominee at a meeting two days later, 90 minutes before his name was put before the full board of trustees for a vote.

At SUNY, after a national search for a new chancellor that cost the university system $108,667, Pataki's budget director, Robert King, ultimately got the job. The daughter-in-law of the Republican Party chairman was hired for a position in the SUNY chancellor's office. And Bill Paxon, a former Republican congressman who served in the state assembly with Pataki and King, was hired to be SUNY's Washington lobbyist.

Chancellor King's office did not respond to requests for an interview.


Much of the criticism by conservative trustees has focused on the State University of New York campus at New Paltz.
Pataki also was embarrassed when it was disclosed that one of his major fundraisers, named to chair SUNY's Old Westbury College Foundation, was lining up proposals to develop the college's valuable Long Island real estate in ways that would have benefited developers more than students. The land, valued at $60 million, would have generated only about $500,000 a year for the school, while private interests made millions. Two other Pataki fundraisers won a $28 million contract to build new dorms, but were fired because of shoddy work that added $4 million to the cost. And an architect who was given hundreds of thousands of dollars in SUNY contracts turned out to be Pataki's next-door neighbor, and a relative by marriage.

The politicization of these New York universities has not been entirely one-sided. Faced with mounting evidence of patronage, Democratic State Controller Carl McCall urged the creation of an independent panel to screen trustee candidates for SUNY and CUNY. McCall, who may run against Pataki in 2002, didn't volunteer that his own wife serves as president of SUNY's Fashion Institute of Technology. When he joined in the chorus of attacks on the sexuality conference at New Paltz, some liberals attacked then-SUNY Chancellor John Ryan, a former president of Indiana University, for hypocrisy because he served as a trustee of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction. When Giuliani started criticizing CUNY, the city council used the opportunity to push him for more funding for schools.

The die has been cast, said Kenneth Sherrill, a political science professor at CUNY's Hunter College. "What the Republicans have done by politicizing the university is to guarantee that when the Democrats come into power, key elements of the Democratic party are going to demand a return to Democratic values, and heads are going to roll. It's going to become like the Sanitation Department or the Department of Motor Vehicles, they did it to us, and we have to get it back. What I'm afraid of is that the universities are now politicized forever."

In fact, many of the likely candidates to succeed Giuliani have suggested that they would restore remediation to the CUNY system. "No mayoral candidate to my knowledge has unequivocally supported the maintenance of high standards at CUNY, so I suspect that whoever comes into office will cave to the pressures of the faculty union and the advocacy groups," conceded Mac Donald, of the Manhattan Institute. "That will be a bad thing, for CUNY's status quo ante was a pale shadow of what it could become if it stayed committed to high expectations."


Candace de Russy, a conservative member of the SUNY Board of Trustees, defends trustee actions as “a reclamation of normal oversight.”
As he began his campaign for re-election in 1998, Pataki was taken to task by Democrats for the decline of SUNY and CUNY because of budget cuts and tuition increases, even though some of those cuts dated back to earlier Democratic administrations. Two decades of budget cuts had decreased state appropriations to CUNY by 40 percent, and city appropriations by 90 percent. While enrollment was the same, the number of full-time faculty had fallen by half, and 60 percent of courses were being taught by part-time adjuncts.

Tuition had doubled in the previous ten years. New York ranked second to California in tax revenues, but 50th of the 50 states in the percentage of revenues going into public higher education. Only three percent of New York's revenues went to higher education. By contrast, California spent eight percent of its revenues on higher education, and North Carolina spent nine percent. A study underwritten by the Rockefeller Foundation found that New York's funding for prisons had increased by almost the same amount as its spending for universities and colleges had decreased. And, built in a monumental spurt when Governor Nelson Rockefeller vastly expanded the system in the early 1960s, many of the campus buildings were deteriorating.

Rockefeller thought that New York could have public research campuses as eminent as the University of California at Berkeley. It hasn't entirely worked out that way, and there has been legitimate frustration with the fact that while campuses like Stony Brook have solid research reputations in the sciences, others have not reached that level.

SUNY is both the youngest and the largest public university system in America. Created in 1948 as a collection of 29 existing state agricultural, technical and teachers' colleges, it has since grown to 64 campuses with 367,000 students, including 35 percent of all New York state's high school graduates.

As SUNY turned 50 in 1998, Pataki neared a re-election bid. He offered a five-year, $3 billion capital plan to help rebuild the dilapidated campuses, and increased funding for CUNY by $87 million, and for SUNY by $118 million, with no tuition increase. It was less than both requested and, as the budget process advanced and the governor came under pressure from his conservative allies, he ended up vetoing millions earmarked to hire more full-time faculty and to increase financial aid for SUNY's 30 community colleges.

The trustees themselves recommended cuts in SUNY's budget, apparently for the first time in the system's history. ("We have a responsibility to provide the best education possible with the wisest use of the finite resources that exist," de Russy said. "We have a responsibility to those who are providing the money, the taxpayers, the parents who are providing the money they pay for tuition, and students' money that they pay for tuition.") They also changed the way they fund the individual schools, so that every campus keeps the tuition and fees it brings in, making them compete for students, instead of turning the money over to the central office and then having it reallocated, a system the conservative Empire Foundation had labeled "socialist." (The new procedure is called the Resource Allocation Method, or RAM.) "It's almost like the guy who shoots his mother and father, then complains about being an orphan," said Brown, of Friends of CUNY.


SUNY New Paltz faculty member Susan Lehrer says conservative SUNY trustees are trying to intimidate faculty and administrators.
The stakes continue to rise on both sides. Conservatives worry that, with Giuliani leaving office in December, pressure to continue his reforms at CUNY will subside. Liberals fear that low-income students will no longer be able to get into CUNY under the higher admissions standards. While defenders of Giuliani's reforms say there has been no appreciable decline in enrollment, detractors allege that the university is trying to cook the numbers. They point out that there has been a sharp increase in the number of students ushered through the admissions process under a waiver program to accept poor students who did not meet the regular entrance criteria.

Faculty and their supporters say top academics won't come to SUNY or CUNY anymore, fearful of political interference. Several top candidates for the job of chancellor of CUNY in 1998 pulled out, including George Washington University President Stephen J. Trachtenberg, who explicitly cited the highly charged political environment.

"I don't know if there's permanent damage, but there's been damage," said Scheuerman, the union president. "Faculty have been fleeing the universities. It's extraordinarily difficult to recruit the best and the brightest." Mac Donald responded: "Who defines 'quality academics?' If by that, you mean advocates of the fearsome race-gender-class triumvirate of identity politics, yes, those academics may well shy away from a school that requires a solid core curriculum in traditional disciplines. There are plenty of quality academics, however, who are in the closet about their dedication to traditional scholarship, who would jump at the opportunity to teach at a university serious about maintaining high standards."


Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has appointed conservative trustees and administrators to the City University of New York and has worked to reduce remedial instruction at CUNY’s senior colleges.
There is also heightening conflict over academic freedom. "I'm a staunch supporter of academic freedom, but the term is somewhat abused," de Russy said. "Let's remember what it is. It's a historic compact between faculty members and the public, which obliges faculty to seek the truth. It is protected speech in the service of truth. It's a privilege. It is not a license to indoctrinate students into political ideologies or any kind of ideology. It is not a license to conduct oneself in any way at all on a college campus."

Some see wide divides, and ominous lessons, and not only in pronouncements such as this one. Sherrill, the Hunter political science professor, said, "There are times when I think that the trustees' vision of a university is Bing Crosby and Bob Hope in straw hats in a canoe out on a lake with a pretty coed. They are, for the most part, people who are opposed ideologically to the public sector, and to providing public benefits to people who are not already privileged."

Sullivan, the state assemblyman, agrees. "They don't want people educated," he said. "They wish that New York was more like Indonesia, where you have a large swath of undereducated people who would be willing to work for less money. The notion that the children of the working families of New York should go to college just like anyone else, to excellent colleges, is anathema to them."

While politics has never been completely absent from public higher education, said Sherrill, "What is different now is that instead of appointing people who can reach the mayor or the governor if the university ever is in trouble, they are enforcing the will of their electoral coalition by appointing people whose appointment is contingent on the goodwill of the mayor or the governor. Thus you have control." He said the universities have become a target "because politicians don't care much about universities. The Republicans have thrown universities as a bone to people because you can't get away with ending abortion, because you can't return to segregation. You can make those constituencies happy by giving them a university." Said Brown: "It's a form of class warfare."

Susan Lehrer, who coordinated the sexuality conference at New Paltz, said it served as an important lesson for her. "What we learned in the aftermath was that it wasn't the conference; it was the opportunity for the trustees and whoever else to begin to flex their conservative muscle and to just try and intimidate faculty and administrators.

"What also happened as a result of this conference and as a result of the subsequent actions is that people have begun to realize the nature of the threat, both to access in the university and to academic freedom, so it's also mobilized a lot of support. A public university isn't just something we can take for granted. We will actually have to defend that."

Last edited by rollhead; September-30th-2005 at 01:17 AM.
rollhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September-30th-2005, 09:45 AM   #30
Doc Martin
Imagine All The People
 
Doc Martin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluenoter
Charming. What would you write if she were a man?

I would not be so polite.
Doc Martin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Jazzcorner's Speakeasy > POLITICS, WORLD ISSUES & WORLD EVENTS

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All material copyright 2009 jazzcorner.com