EDUCATE ON PUBLIC POLICY BROADLY-----TEACH OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN PUBLIC POLICY AND GLOBAL HISTORY SO THEY CAN BE CITIZENS AND KEEP POWER AND WEALTH.
This is the only way a 99% will keep that old world global 1% at bay. That said we all know every education venue is being privatized, corporatized, monopolized just so WE THE PEOPLE cannot find the information to educate.
THAT IS THE GOAL OF RACE TO THE TOP----CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA PRIVATIZATION OF OUR STRONG PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES.
Baltimore can be described as having a societal structure just as 1000 AD Venetian Empire because it's education system is filled with wealth and private education from K-university. These institutions hail from early America and indeed have that ethos of freemansonry, GREEK, secret society that comes with working for old world global rich. It is why as well Maryland and especially Baltimore has one of the worst public education structures in the nation. If one reads an EDUCATION WEEK OR WASHINGTON POST one sees education stats saying achievement is growing----or high. That education data is skewed -----it hides the fact that Maryland does not want its residents to be CITIZENS EDUCATED TO BE CIVIL LEADERS FOR A 99%. We have a state of 5% to the 1% global Wall Street players-----those are people who FOLLOW and do anything global Wall Street says.
THIS IS HOW REPUBLICAN STATES WITH POLICY GOALS THAT CREATE WEALTH AND POWER INEQUITY HAVE CITIZENS MIDDLE-CLASS, LOWER CLASS, AND POOR VOTING REPUBLICAN----AGAINST THEIR OWN INTERESTS.
These wealth and power structures always create a 99% fighting with each other to be that PAY-TO-PLAY PERSON. Maryland and Baltimore did a great job bringing folks from all over the nation to its private schools----bringing people into this 5% to the 1% structure and this ability soared during that War on Poverty Federal funding for low-income citizens that was all simply misappropriated to growing private K-university schools.
The citizens funneled into these private education structures often do so just to be able to get a good education----what they often do not know is they are deliberately kept from broad left education that tells the 99% how a global 1% keeps holding global citizens down.
LAST CENTURY'S PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES IN THE NORTH AND WEST WERE EDUCATING JUST THAT----THEY WERE FILLED WITH ADMINISTRATORS AND PROFESSORS WANTING TO EDUCATION ALL STUDENTS TO BE CITIZENS.
Below we see a university structure that is typical over centuries. Our public universities adapted what was the same private and IVY LEAGUE university governance structure----or at least state and local pols installed that structure. Fordham University is a Catholic Jesuit university and it leads in global privatization of education policies. These Catholic universities work just as private IVY LEAGUEs in their CONTEMPT of public education. The Jesuits are on record for saying---ONLY THE MOST EXCEPTIONAL NEED BROAD EDUCATION. This is the same thing global Wall Street is saying and indeed building----a tiered system of exceptional students getting all the resources while a 99% are tracked from K-career college on apprenticeship-only education.
PLEASE GLANCE THROUGH----OUR PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES LIKE PRIVATE HAVE A VERY CORPORATE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE. THIS GIVES THE APPOINTED HEAD OF UNIVERSITY THE POWER TO CONTROL ALL LOWER APPOINTMENTS.
New York is my campus. Fordham is my school.TM
Chapter Six: Faculty Role in University Governance
§4-06.01 - General Provisions
- Governance. The Faculty role in University governance is carried on through participation at the University, School and Department levels through representative bodies, committees and meetings of the Faculty at large. The Faculty has primary responsibility for fundamental academic matters [see §4-01.02]. In these matters, the power of review, lodged in the Board of Trustees and delegated by it to the President of the University, should be exercised adversely only in exceptional circumstances and after consultation with Faculty. The Faculty responsibilities for governance are carried out primarily through the Faculty Senate, the faculty organizations of the Schools and Departments, and the committees described in this Chapter.
- Faculty Voting Privileges. All full-time faculty members of a School or Department shall have the right to participate and vote in decisions of the unit, with the exception of certain restrictions in cases of joint appointments, personnel recommendations, and the nomination of Department Chairpersons [see §4-01.04 and .05, §4-05 and §4-06.50(c)].
- Faculty Representatives. All faculty members shall be entitled to participate in choosing representatives for University, Campus and School bodies which represent the Faculty, subject to restrictions in these Statutes and the Constitution of the Faculty Senate.
- Selection Committees. Representatives of the Faculty shall have the right to participate in Search Committees for Deans of Schools and higher academic officers of the University. Faculty members of such committees are normally appointed after consultation with the President of the Faculty Senate or faculty of the Schools involved, by authority of the President of the University, or in the case of Deans or the Director of University Libraries, by the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
§4-06.02 - Faculty Senate
The Faculty Senate is the representative body of the University Faculty. It serves in an advisory capacity to the President of the University on all matters of concern to the University pursuant to the Constitution of the Faculty Senate, Article I, (B)(a) [see Appendix 2]. It has the right and duty to initiate recommendations and to speak for the Faculty in all areas of University activity.
§4-06.03 - Committees
The faculty participates in several types of committees as part of its role in governance:
- University Committees [see §4-06.04]
- Committees of the Board of Trustees [see §4-06.05]
- Presidential Committees [see §4-06.06]
- Statutory Faculty Senate Committees [see §4-06.07, 08]
- Other Faculty Senate Committees [see §4-06.07]
- School Committees [see §4-06.10]
- Department Committees [see §4-06.11]
- Ad Hoc Committees [see §4-06.12]
- The Board of Trustees and/or the President of the University may establish University Committees to consider matters which affect more than one School of the University. Every reasonable effort shall be made to ensure appropriate representation of the several Schools.
- Faculty representatives on University Committees may receive the advice of the Faculty Senate on the work of the Committees.
- Appointment. Faculty members of Committees established by the Board of Trustees containing faculty representation shall be appointed by the Faculty Senate for two-year renewable terms.
- List of Committees. The following Committees of the Board of Trustees have faculty representation:
- Academic Affairs Committee. The Academic Affairs Committee shall review all major changes in the educational programs and policies of the University. The Committee shall include at least two faculty members.
- Audit and Finance Committee. The Audit and Finance Committee shall appraise the financial control and accounting system of the University. The Committee shall include at least two faculty members.
- Facilities Committee. The Facilities Committee is responsible for monitoring the condition of existing facilities and developing a comprehensive facilities management program. The committee shall include at least two faculty members.
- Student Affairs Committee. The Student Affairs Committee shall review all matters affecting students except those relating to academic programs. The Committee shall include at least two faculty members.
- University Commencement Committee. The Commencement Committee shall solicit and screen nominees for Honorary Degrees to be conferred by Fordham University at Commencement. The Committee also nominates persons to be the commencement speaker. The Committee shall consist of ten members, at least two of whom shall be faculty members.
- University Relations Committee. The University Relations Committee oversees the external relations/advancement aspects of University operations including fund raising, alumni/alumnae and other constituency relations, and public affairs. The committee shall include at least two faculty members.
- Definition. Presidential Committees are committees whose members are appointed by the President of the University (except in those cases in which faculty members may be appointed by the Faculty Senate) which report to the President of the University or to a person designated by the President.
- Appointment. Faculty members appointed by the President of the University are selected as follows:
- The President of the University shall inform the President of the Faculty Senate of the nature and purpose of each committee proposed to be created, except as limited by paragraph (2). The Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate shall present nominees to the Faculty Senate for each Presidential Committee. The Faculty Senate normally shall select, from these nominees, twice the number of faculty members required, and shall transmit the names to the President of the University for appointment.
- This subdivision shall not preclude the establishment of committees by the President of the University without consulting the Faculty Senate.
- List of Committees. The following are Presidential Committees.
- Advisory Committee on ROTC. The Committee shall advise the President (through the Vice President for Academic Affairs) on all matters concerning the ROTC program. The Committee shall consist of seven tenured faculty members appointed by the President of the University for three-year terms.
- Athletic Advisory Board. The Athletic Advisory Board shall exercise supervision over tercollegiate and intramural athletics so that all students of the University may be provided the most effective athletic program possible. The Board shall have authority to investigate and commend implementation of the athletic policies of the University, subject to the approval of the President and the Board of Trustees. The Athletic Advisory Board shall consist of twelve members representing all segments of the University, four of whom shall be faculty members. [See Constitution of the Athletic Advisory Board]. The four faculty members shall be appointed by the President of the University for three-year renewable terms.
- Budget Planning Committee. The Budget Planning Committee shall assist the President of the University in the formulation of the annual budget. The Committee shall consist of six members of the faculty selected by the Faculty Senate for three-year renewable terms, and six administrators appointed by the President. The President of the University shall serve as an ex officio member of the Committee. The Chairperson of the Committee shall normally be the Vice President for Finance. [See §3-09.02]. The term of office shall begin on July 1.
- Computer Advisory Committee. The Computer Advisory Committee shall advise the Administration concerning the organization, operation and use of the Computer and Information Management Systems. The Committee shall consist of six Presidential appointees, or their delegates, and six members of the faculty. The faculty members shall be appointed by the Faculty Senate for three-year renewable terms.
- Faculty Development Committee. The Faculty Development Committee shall study programs of faculty development, advise the Vice President for Academic Affairs, and report to the Faculty Senate concerning policies for professional improvement of the Faculty of the University. The Faculty Development Committee shall consist of the Vice President for Academic Affairs; one administrator from the Rose Hill Campus and one from the Lincoln Center Campus appointed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs; the President of the Faculty Senate, ex officio; and two faculty members from the Rose Hill Campus and two faculty members from the Lincoln Center Campus. The faculty members shall be appointed by the Faculty Senate for three-year renewable terms.
- Research Council
- The Research Council shall formulate University research policies and procedures, and shall report to the President of the University.
- The Research Council shall consist of the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs-Research, University Director of Research, or designate, the President of the Faculty Senate, ex officio, and ten faculty members (five from the Arts and Sciences Faculty at Rose Hill, one from the Arts and Sciences Faculty at Lincoln Center and one each from the Faculty of Business and the Schools of Education, Law, and Social Service). The faculty members shall be chosen so as to reflect the interests of the natural sciences, the social sciences, the humanities and the professions.
- The Research Council may call upon other University offices as resources.
- On or before January 15 of each year the Research Council shall transmit to the Faculty Senate the names of two nominees for each vacancy on the Council, along with supporting data. The Faculty Senate may add its nominees to those of the Research Council if it so desires, and may rank all nominees and forward the list to the President of the University, who shall make the appointments.
- The term of office for a member of the Research Council shall be for three years. No member may serve more than two terms consecutively. Subsequent reappointment may be made after a lapse of two years.
- Committees Dealing with Student Affairs. There are several committees dealing with student affairs which report to the Vice President for Student Affairs. Faculty representatives on these committees are appointed as described in the Student Handbook and the Code of Conduct Adjudication Process.
- Editorial Board of the Fordham University Press. The Editorial Board shall control the use of the Fordham University Press imprint by authorizing the execution of contracts with authors after adjudicating manuscripts offered for publication, and shall evaluate, on a regular basis, the nature and character of the publications. The Board shall normally consist of eight faculty members with professorial rank who possess a record of publication. The members are appointed by the President of the University upon recommendation by the Vice President for Academic Affairs for three-year renewable terms.
- Definition. Committees of the Faculty Senate are committees appointed or elected by the Faculty Senate, pursuant to these Statutes or the Constitution or by-laws of the Faculty Senate, which report to the Senate.
- Selection Procedure. Committee members are selected as follows:
- Committees appointed by the Faculty Senate: The Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate normally shall present nominees for these committees to the Faculty Senate for its approval.
- Committees elected by the Faculty Senate: The Faculty Senate shall elect the committee members in the manner provided for each committee.
- Obligation to Report. Committees of the Faculty Senate shall report to the Faculty Senate annually and when requested by the Faculty Senate.
- Faculty Elections Committee
- The Faculty Elections Committee shall conduct elections as required by these Statutes and the Constitution of the Faculty Senate.
- The Faculty Elections Committee shall consist of eight faculty members appointed by the Faculty Senate for three-year renewable terms.
- Faculty Handbook Committee. The Faculty Handbook Committee shall review current and proposed faculty and administrative policies and procedures in the light of the university statutes. The committee shall consist of the President of the Faculty Senate, ex officio, and twelve members of the faculty appointed by the Faculty Senate for three-year renewable terms. Proposed changes in university statutes, policies or procedures shall be submitted to the Faculty Senate.
- Faculty Hearing Committee
- The Faculty Hearing Committee shall consider matters as provided in §4-07, Parts II, III and IV.
- The Faculty Hearing Committee shall consist of nine tenured faculty members appointed by the Faculty Senate for a maximum of two consecutive two-year terms. No more than one member of any Department or School Faculty shall serve as a member of this committee. In the event of disqualification of a member of the Committee in a particular case, the Faculty Senate shall appoint a substitute as provided in §4-06.14.
- Faculty Library Committee. The Faculty Library Committee shall advise the University Librarian concerning University Library policies and budget. The Committee shall consist of the University Librarian, ex officio, and nine members of the faculty appointed by the Faculty Senate for a maximum of two consecutive three-year terms. The Law School Library does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Faculty Library Committee or of the University Librarian.
- Committee on Student Life. The Committee on Student Life shall enhance the culture of the campus and insure the education of the whole person so central to liberal arts education in the Jesuit tradition. The committee shall foster faculty awareness of and involvement in student activities under the jurisdiction of the Vice-President for Student Affairs, and promote communication between faculty and those involved in student affairs. The Committee shall consist of five faculty members appointed by the Faculty Senate for three-year renewable terms.
- Faculty Committee on Technology. The Faculty Committee on Technology shall advise University officials concerning the purchase, support, and use of technologies relevant to all aspects of academic affairs. The Committee shall consist of the University's chief technology official, ex officio, other University technology staff deemed relevant by the University's chief technology official, ex officio, the Academic Vice President or his designee, ex officio, the President of the Faculty Senate, ex officio, and eight full-time faculty members. No more than one member of any School shall serve as a member of this committee. Faculty members will be appointed by the Faculty Senate and serve a maximum of two consecutive three-year terms.
- Faculty Life Committee.
- The Faculty Life Committee shall advise the Faculty Senate on those aspects of University life that contribute to faculty development and to the sense of University community.
- The Faculty Life Committee shall consist of the President of the Faculty Senate, ex officio, and eleven other faculty members appointed by the Faculty Senate for three-year renewable terms. The Committee membership consists of: five from the Arts and Sciences Faculty at Rose Hill, two from the Arts and Sciences Faculty at Lincoln Center, and one each from the Schools of Business, Education, Law and Social Service. Of the five Committee members representing the Arts and Sciences Faculty at Rose Hill, three shall be tenured and two non-tenured. Of the two Committee members representing the Arts and Sciences Faculty at Lincoln Center, one shall be tenured and one non-tenured. Faculty representing schools having one seat on the Committee may be either tenured or non-tenured. Committee members shall be deemed to have the status they held at the time of appointment regardless of a status change which may occur after appointment.
- Faculty Salary and Benefits Committee
- The Faculty Salary and Benefits Committee shall review with the Administration the faculty salary structure of the University. The Committee shall determine annually with the Administration the allocation of monies for faculty salaries and fringe benefits, subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees (see §4-08.01). The Committee shall not represent the Law School. The Committee shall report to the Faculty Senate and obtain its approval before reaching a final agreement with the Administration. Nothing in this paragraph shall modify the power of the Board of Trustees to establish the University Budget.
- The Faculty Salary and Benefits Committee shall consist of the President of the Faculty Senate, ex officio, and twenty-two other faculty members elected by the Faculty Senate in the Spring semester for three-year terms. There are no term limits for members of the Faculty Salary and Benefits Committee. The twenty-two faculty members shall be elected as follows: ten from the Arts and Sciences Faculty at Rose Hill, four from the Arts and Sciences Faculty at Lincoln Center, four from the Faculty of Business, and two each from the Schools of Education and Social Service. Of the ten Committee members representing the Arts and Sciences Faculty at Rose Hill, six shall be tenured and four non-tenured. Of the four Committee members representing the Arts and Sciences Faculty at Lincoln Center, two shall be tenured and two non-tenured. Of the four members of the Committee representing the Faculty of Business, two shall be tenured and two non-tenured. Of the two members of the Committee representing the Faculty of the School of Education, one shall be tenured and one non-tenured. Of the two members of the Committee representing the Faculty of the School of Social Service, one shall be tenured and one non-tenured. The persons nominated and subsequently elected shall be deemed to have the status they held at the time of election regardless of a status change which may occur after election.
- The Faculty Salary and Benefits Committee shall be elected by the Faculty Senate from a list of nominees presented by the Schools of the University (except the Law School). Nominations shall be secured in the following manner: During the Spring semester, the President of the Faculty Senate shall present to each Faculty separate lists of the tenured and non-tenured eligible full-time faculty. Members of a faculty voting in the election shall nominate three names from the list and return the ballot to the President of the Faculty Senate. The Elections Committee shall count the ballots and rank the nominees from each Faculty according to the number of votes received. Nominees shall be selected in descending order from this list to supply two names for each vacancy. The Faculty Senate shall elect members of the Committee from this list of nominees.
- If a vacancy occurs in the Committee:
- The President of the Faculty Senate shall promptly fill the vacancy by certifying as elected thereto the candidate from the Faculty in which the vacancy occurs who secured the next highest number of votes in the latest election of the Committee members by the Faculty Senate.
- If the vacancy is not filled as provided in subparagraph (A), the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate, together with the Senators representing the Faculty concerned, shall designate a faculty member from that Faculty to fill the vacancy.
- A committee member filling a vacancy pursuant to this paragraph shall serve out the term of the member whose vacancy is thus filled.
- The term of office for this Committee shall begin on July 1.
- Tenure and Reappointment Appeals Committee
- The Tenure and Reappointment Appeals Committee shall consider matters provided in §4-07, Part I.
- The Tenure and Reappointment Appeals Committee shall consist of eleven tenured faculty members (five from the Arts and Sciences Faculty at Rose Hill, two from the Arts and Sciences Faculty at Lincoln Center, and one each from the Faculty of Business and the Schools of Education, Law, and Social Service) elected by the Faculty Senate for three-year terms. No member of the Committee shall serve for more than one consecutive three-year term, and no more than one member of any Department may serve as a member at the same time. If any case requires a rehearing or reconsideration by the Committee, to the extent possible the same Committee members who originally heard the case shall constitute the Committee for that purpose, regardless of the then current membership of the Committee.
- The Tenure and Reappointment Appeals Committee shall be elected by the Faculty Senate from a list of nominees presented by the Faculties of the University. Nominations shall be secured in the following manner: During the Spring semester, the President of the Faculty Senate shall present to each Faculty a list of all eligible full-time tenured faculty members of that Faculty. Each full-time faculty member may nominate up to three names from the list and return the ballot to the President of the Faculty Senate. The Elections Committee shall count the ballots and rank the nominees from each Faculty according to the number of votes each received. Nominees shall be selected in descending order from this ranked list to supply two names for each vacancy. The Faculty Senate shall elect members of the Committee from this list of nominees.
- If a vacancy (other than temporary) occurs in the Committee:
- If the vacancy is not filled as provided in sub-paragraph (A), the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate, together with the Senators representing the Faculty concerned, shall designate a faculty member from that Faculty to fill the vacancy.
- In the event of disqualification of a member of the Committee in a particular case, the Faculty Senate may appoint a substitute as provided in §4-06.14.
- University Tenure Review Committee
- The University Tenure Review Committee, subsequent to the recommendations of the Deans and the Vice President for Academic Affairs, shall review all positive tenure recommendations by Departmental or Professional School Faculty (with the exception of the Law School) to ensure that The University Norms for Granting Tenure [§4-05.04(d)(1)(2) are adhered to by the unit making such a recommendation. The Committee in its deliberations will take into account the weight given to each of the qualifications of the candidate for tenure as articulated by the several Departments and Schools in the context of their varying needs [§4-05.04(d)(2)(A). The Committee may make a recommendation on tenure at variance with the Department or School only for exceptional reasons. The Committee shall make its recommendations to the President of the University.
- Faculty who had tenure track appointments on or before September 1, 1996, and are applying for tenure in Departments and Professional Schools (with the exception of the Law School) where fewer than sixty percent of the unit are tenured may elect at the time of tenure application to have their cases reviewed by the University Tenure Review Committee if the unit vote is positive.
- No recommendation by the Tenure and Reappointment Appeals Committee shall be reviewed by the University Tenure Review Committee.
- The University Tenure Review Committee shall consist of ten tenured faculty members (four from the Arts and Sciences Faculty, Rose Hill, two from the Arts and Sciences Faculty, Lincoln Center, one each from the Faculties of Business, Education and Social Service, with a fourth rotating among these Professional Schools alphabetically, beginning with Business for the Spring Term, 1998), elected by the Faculty Senate for three-year terms. No member of the Committee may serve for more than one consecutive three-year term. No more than one member of a Department may serve as a member of this Committee. If any case requires a rehearing and reconsideration by the Committee, to the extent possible the same University Tenure Review Committee that originally acted on the case shall be reconvened regardless of timing.
- The University Tenure Review Committee shall be elected by the Faculty Senate from a list of nominees presented by the Faculties of the University (except the Law School). Nominations shall be secured in the following manner. During the Fall semester, the President of the Faculty Senate shall present to each Faculty a list of its tenured faculty members. Each full-time faculty member of the Faculty shall nominate three names from the list and return the ballot to the President of the Faculty Senate. The Elections Committee shall count the ballots and rank the nominees in each Faculty according to the number of votes each has received. Nominees shall be selected in descending order from this ranked list to supply two names for each vacancy. The Faculty Senate shall elect the members of the Committee from this list of nominees.
- If a vacancy (other than temporary) occurs in the Committee:
- The President of the Faculty Senate shall promptly fill the vacancy by certifying as elected thereto the candidate, from the Faculty in which the vacancy occurs, who secured the next highest number of votes in the latest election of the Committee members by the Faculty Senate.
- In the event of disqualification of a member of the Committee in a particular case, the Faculty Senate may appoint a substitute as provided in §4-06.14.
Each School or Faculty may establish such faculty committees as it deems appropriate.
§4-06.11 - Department or Faculty Committees
Each Department may establish faculty committees as it deems appropriate.
§4-06.12 - Ad Hoc Committees
When required, ad hoc committees may be established at the University, Faculty, School or Department level, to make appropriate studies and recommendations. These Committees normally shall be established after consultation between the involved faculty and administration, as appropriate for the level concerned.
§4-06.13 - Term of Office
Unless otherwise specified, the term of office for each committee member shall commence on September 1. Each committee member shall hold office until the expiration of the designated term and until a successor has been selected and qualified.
§4-06.14 - Disqualification and Temporary Substitution of Committee Members
- Faculty members are disqualified from serving on particular cases brought to the Faculty Hearing Committee, the Tenure and Reappointment Appeals Committee, and the University Tenure Review Committee if they have had prior roles in the case or have demonstrated another form of conflict of interest.
- The Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate may make temporary appointments to committees when required to fill vacancies for the purpose of avoiding a conflict of interest and in cases where the committee requests a substitute to fill a vacancy caused by disqualification or otherwise.
- Members of committees dealing with individual personnel matters or confidential administrative matters are bound by the rule of confidentiality [see §4-07.41].
- Nothing contained in this section shall preclude members of such committees from disclosing confidential matters to the Faculty Senate in executive session [see §4-06.04 (b)].
- Unless otherwise specified, each committee shall elect its own presiding officer and any other officers it may require.
- Each committee may establish its own by-laws and procedures. Committees specified in §4-06.04 through §4-06.09 shall file copies of their by-laws and procedures in the Faculty Senate Office. [See also §4-07.03(a), §4-07.32(a)]. The Faculty Senate may request that other committees file such documents in the Faculty Senate Office.
- Chairperson. A faculty member shall serve as Chairperson of each Department. The Chairperson's duties shall be carried out in consultation with the faculty members of the Department.
- Responsibilities of the Chairperson. The Chairperson's duties shall be carried out in accordance with these Statutes and other policies of the University, Faculty, School or Department.
- Representational Duties. The Chairperson shall represent the Department in dealing with units of the University and administrators, informing them of the needs, policies and procedures of the Department. The Chairperson shall communicate University and School policies to the members of the Department.
- Administrative Duties. The Chairperson shall administer the Department including calling and presiding at meetings, implementing University, Faculty, School or Department policies and procedures, supervising the staff and facilities, preparing the budget and supervising expenditures of the unit.
- Curricular and Instructional Duties. The Chairperson shall be responsible for planning and implementing the curriculum, instructional programs and schedules, and ensuring proper evaluation of teaching effectiveness, according to procedures established by the University, Faculty, School or Department.
- Counseling Duties. The Chairperson shall arrange for the registration and counseling of students.
- Duties Relating to Faculty. The Chairperson shall take an active role in recruitment of faculty and instructional staff, shall preside at meetings of personnel committees as provided in these Statutes and shall review progress with each probationary faculty member at least annually [see §4-05.02(e)(2)].
- Selection of Chairperson
- The Chairperson normally shall be selected from among the tenured Professors and Associate Professors of the Department.
- The nominating committee shall consist of all full-time faculty with the rank of Assistant Professor or higher who have completed one academic year of service at the University.
- If there are fewer than five faculty members who meet the above requirements, the full-time faculty members of the Department shall elect from among themselves by written secret ballot the number of persons necessary to secure a five member nominating committee.
- In Departments where there are fewer than five full-time faculty members, the entire faculty shall constitute the nominating committee.
- Any member of the faculty serving under a terminal notice of contract shall be eligible to participate in nominations for Chairperson only if such person will serve under the Chairperson to be appointed.
- Eighty (80) percent of a nominating committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of all business.
- Faculty members on faculty fellowship or leave of absence and administrators tenured in the unit may vote as members of a nominating committee if they are present at the meeting but they shall not affect the presence or absence of a quorum.
- The Dean of Faculty shall meet with the nominating committee for the purpose of sharing perspectives.
- The nominating committee shall vote separately on each nominee for Chairperson. The Committee shall forward all the names (up to three) from among those who received a majority of the votes cast. The vote shall be by written secret ballet. The Committee shall transmit the names to the Dean of Faculty. Each academic unit may use its own procedures for the process of nominating candidates for the unit's recommendation of a chair, but these procedures must be put in written form, must respect Robert's Rules for Order, and must be approved by the members of that academic unit prior to beginning the nomination process. These procedures should be forwarded by the unit to the appropriate deans, to the Office of the Provost, and to the Faculty Senate in the same way in which it must declare its procedures for merit considerations.
- The Dean shall add comments, and transmit the names of the nominees to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, who shall appoint the Chairperson.
- If the Vice President for Academic Affairs declines to appoint any of the nominees, the Vice President shall meet with the Committee and the Dean to discuss the matter. A quorum is not required at this meeting, unless another nomination for a permanent chairperson is to be made by the committee, in which case the usual 80% quorum will be required.
- If agreement on a Chairperson is not achieved, the Vice President for Academic Affairs may appoint an Acting Chairperson [see §4-06.51]
- Term of Office. The term of office of a Chairperson is three years, renewable for one sequential term. A shorter appointment may be made in special circumstances. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Chairperson who has served two Consecutive three-year terms may be continued in Office by reappointment for one-year terms, subject to the nomination process described in §4-06.50(c).
- Stipend. In addition to receiving a reduced teaching load, the Chairperson shall receive an appropriate stipend.
- Termination of Appointment. A proceeding for termination of the appointment of a Chairperson may be commenced by petition to the Dean of Faculty made by at least two thirds of the eligible nominating committee; or by the Dean with the consent of a majority of the eligible nominating committee. If the Dean is unable to reconcile the matter, the Dean shall inform the Vice President for Academic Affairs, who shall conduct a hearing at which all parties may be represented. The decision of the Vice President for Academic Affairs shall be final.
- If a Department is unable to make any nominations for Chairperson, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, after consultation with the Dean of Faculty, may appoint an Acting Chairperson for a period not to exceed one academic year.
- In case of inability of a Chairperson to serve, the Vice President for Academic Affairs, after consultation with the Dean of Faculty and the Professors and Associate Professors of the Department, may appoint an Acting Chairperson to serve until a Chairperson is appointed pursuant to §4-06.50(c).
The Chairperson with the concurrence of the Department may request that an Associate or Assistant Chairperson be appointed in cases where the administration and operation of Associate or the unit so require. Upon approval by the Dean of Faculty, such appointments are made by the Vice President for Academic Affairs for one-year renewable terms. Appropriate workload and compensation shall be arranged.
§4-06.53 - Chairperson of a School Faculty
In Schools not organized by Departments one member of the faculty of the School may, at the option of the faculty, be selected as Chairperson of the Faculty of the School by the same procedure specified for the choosing of Department Chairperson [see 4-06.50(c)]. The responsibilities of the Chairperson of a Faculty shall be determined by the Faculty of the School, and may include the following:
- Conducting faculty meetings dealing with appointment, reappointment, promotion and tenure, and making the presiding officer's recommendation in these matters.
- Representing the faculty in dealings with the Dean, other administrators, and other units of the University.
§4-06.54 - Coordinators or Directors of Programs and Areas
The nominating process does not apply to Coordinators or Directors of Programs or Areas. For such positions, if the program is intra-departmental, the selection shall be made by the Chairperson of the Department; if it is inter-departmental, the selection shall be made by the Dean of the School.
§4-06.55 - Directors of Arts and Sciences Interdisciplinary Committees
- Responsibility. The Director of an Arts and Sciences Interdisciplinary Committee (or in the special case where there are Co-directors) is the operational head/administrative officer of the program with responsibilities for coordinating the participating faculty members' formulating of major and minor programs offered by the Committee. The Director represents the program's needs to the Dean(s) of the College(s) and the Dean of the Arts and Sciences Faculty as appropriate, coordinates course scheduling for courses specific to the program, discusses the program's needs with the Chairpersons of those Departments that offer courses essential to the program, and coordinates scheduling and cycling of these with the Chairpersons.
- Selection of Director and Terms of Appointment. The Director of an Interdisciplinary Program is nominated by the members of the Interdisciplinary Committee, is appointed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs, upon the recommendation of the Dean of the Arts and Sciences Faculty after consultation with the Dean(s) of the Colleges(s) for a three-year term, and receives a stipend and/or course reduction as appropriate to the size of the program and the burden of the tasks involved in managing the program
A state universities GOVERNING BOARD is a group of citizens appointed by the state's governor. That state governing board has historically chosen candidates as DEAN who then goes to a university group of academics working at that state university for approval. Now, if you lived in the north and western states this past century those governors were often LEFT SOCIAL DEMOCRATS----so they appointed people to these governing boards who would then chose left DEANS who would then hire LEFT PROFESSORS. This was why northern and western universities were strong broad citizenship anchors in communities for public education. Meanwhile, the southern universities captured to Republican governors---saw appointments to governance boards of people wanting to keep that 5% to the 1% working for wealth and power inequity. Southern universities do not teach citizenship and leadership ====they educate people to be 5% followers of Wall Street corporations.
WCU Nursing Dean Appointed by Governor to State
Board Hattiesburg, Miss., April 3, 2014 - Dr. Janet Williams, RN, PhD, dean of the William Carey University School of Nursing, was recently appointed by Governor Phil Bryant to serve on the State Board of Nursing. She has served in the school of nursing for over 20 years as a teacher and administrator, and most recently, as dean.
“This is a distinct honor for Dr. Williams and for WCU,” said Dr. Tommy King, president of WCU. “The school of nursing has made tremendous strides in recent years.”
Dr. Williams was elected by her peers to serve as Vice Chair for the Mississippi Institution of Higher Learning (IHL) Deans and Directors committee for the Schools of Nursing in 2012, and served as Chair for the committee in 2013. She received a BS in nursing from The University of Southern Mississippi, a MSN in adult health nursing from University of Alabama in Birmingham, an MBA from University of South Alabama, and a PhD in educational leadership from USM.
In 2011, she was given the Woman of Achievement Award in the education category by the Lighthouse Business and Professional Women (BPW) organization. Lighthouse BPW represents successful women in every sector of the Mississippi Gulf Coast’s business community. As an RN with licensure in Mississippi and Louisiana, she held various positions before coming WCU in 1990. She worked as a critical care supervisor at the Doctor’s Hospital in Mobile, as an instructor at Providence School of Nursing in Mobile, as a sales representative for Norwich Eaton Pharmaceuticals in Norwich, NY, as a critical care consultant and educator at University of South Alabama Medical Center, as director of education and quality assurance at Gulf Coast Medical Center in Gulfport, and as a staff nurse at Memorial Hospital in Gulfport, among other positions.
Caption: Pictured is Dr. Janet Williams, RN, PhD, dean of the William Carey University School of Nursing, who was recently appointed by Governor Phil Bryant to serve on the State Board of Nursing
Obama's appointment of a KAGAN to the Supreme Court had nothing to do with left social Democracy----it was the opposite. Harvard Law declared a decade ago that there was no more American politics or law---only international and global corporate. Obama's appointment KILLED AMERICAN RULE OF LAW, DEMOCRACY, AND OUR RIGHTS AS CITIZENS. Yet, the media was right out there---oh, look its a woman---oh she's progressive, she's liberal----she's MAKING THE GLOBAL 1% AND THEIR 2% RICHER----that is all.
Who appointed KAGAN? Governor Deval Patrick. Who is getting killed with lost rights as citizens and accessing strong education and information? All citizens but black citizens have lost all access to Rule of Law and courts. This is why.
Kagan is appointed as DEAN of IVY LEAGUE HARVARD and then brings all law professors to that campus to monopolize law training. Don't forget both Clinton and Obama are Harvard grads---Hillary is tied to YALE HARVARD so this is the problem for the 99% and this attack on our public K-university. This is also why all across America we have no lawyers working for justice or to enforce US Rule of Law-----Harvard has the funds and endowment to hire all law professors because it was central in these few decades of systemic tens of trillions of dollars in global Wall Street fraud---as was Johns Hopkins. If you control all lawyers and train them----they are not going to SEE FRAUD OR CORRUPTION---SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL.
'Kagan added, “I think of Harvard as the Earth of law schools.”'
'Harvard completed its monopoly yesterday by hiring the final holdout, William van Alstyne, from William and Mary'.
None of this has to happen---WE THE PEOPLE have simply allowed it to happen---we keep thinking it won't get worse when it has only started to get worse. This is why election rigging matters----it is #1 ROLLING PROTEST MATERIAL.
Dean Kagan Hires Every Law Professor in the Country
Posted by The Record on April 4, 2008 in NewsBY NICK PROFFS
The new Harvard Law faculty at their orientation meeting.
Harvard Law School’s communications office announced today that HLS has hired every law professor in the country, solidifying its position as the preeminent law school in America.
Dean Elena Kagan said that she got the idea from recent additions to the faculty. “As soon as we’d hire one professor from, say, Columbia or Chicago,” said Kagan, “he or she would suggest another prize we should grab. We hired two, then three, then finally realized we were only delaying the inevitable.”
“Plus,” added Kagan, “our U.S. News ranking was being held back by our student-teacher ratio.” Harvard’s student-teacher ratio, formerly 11:1, currently stands at 1:17.
The new additions will cause the law school’s faculty payroll to balloon from $30 million to $9 billion. Kagan brushed aside worries about financial strain on the school noting that “this university has upwards of 40 billion kazillion dollars. Also, we’ll just hit up some alumni.”
Harvard completed its monopoly yesterday by hiring the final holdout, William van Alstyne, from William and Mary. Van Alstyne, who had moved to William and Mary from Duke after William and Mary agreed to hire his wife, was swayed after Harvard agreed to hire his wife, three children, 6-year-old grandchild, and his dog, Oliver Wendell Bones, who will all teach legal research and writing.
While most other law schools have folded, Virginia announced plans to continue operations, handing over teaching roles to its 80-strong softball coaching staff. Reactions from the Virginia student body on the difference will be printed in the Record the next time a Virginia student attends a class.
Said Jack Goldsmith, who was hired by Harvard in 2004 from Virginia, “It’s nice to see some of my old colleagues here.” Added Goldsmith, “Also, everyone else.”
In a surprising reaction, Looney Tunes announced its intention to create a rival law school, featuring Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Tweety Bird, Bill Murray, and Barack Obama, whose recent presidential race caused Harvard to overlook his status as an adjunct law professor on leave from Chicago.
Yale Law School objected to Kagan’s claims, observing that their faculty remained intact. Kagan dismissed the allegations, noting that no one actually teaches law at Yale.
New faculty offices will be located on the international space station currently under construction (see Space Station, A3).
Kagan added, “I think of Harvard as the Earth of law schools.”
Just as Obama and Clinton were sold on bogus PRETEND LEFT POLICY STANCES----so too was KAGAN---here we see where hype on a black professor hire led to press saying she was socially progressive while faculty was shouting the opposite.
This has happened these few decades across the nation as regards our state public universities and their appointed DEANS and what policy positions taken by professors hired by those DEANS.
This is why our public universities were silent during the worst of CLINTON/OBAMA GLOBAL 1% WALL STREET neo-liberalism---and they come out for policies that are not REAL left labor and justice.
'Law school officials said the numbers did not reflect the whole story because offers were made to other minority and women scholars; some were declined and some still open. But others said the record spoke for itself.
“Kagan’s performance as dean at Harvard raises doubts about her commitment to equality for traditionally disadvantaged groups,” Guy-Uriel Charles, a black law professor at Duke, wrote last month in an oft-cited post'.
Nominee Scrutinized for Hiring on Race
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYEMAY 13, 2010
BOSTON — When Elena Kagan became dean of Harvard Law School in 2003, she could have taken the endowed chair named for Isaac Royall Jr. The Royall family had donated more than 2,100 acres to Harvard in the 1700s, but the family had earned its fortune on the backs of the slave trade.
Ms. Kagan declined to take the Royall professorship. Instead, she chose a new chair in the name of Charles Hamilton Houston, the first African-American on the Harvard Law Review and a crusader against Jim Crow laws.
Ms. Kagan’s history on race issues at Harvard has come under scrutiny since President Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court on Monday. Critics say that she did not create enough racial diversity at Harvard, and that in the absence of any writings or opinions, her hiring practices serve as a clue to her thinking. Her supporters counter that she demonstrated a commitment to equality; her claiming the chair in the name of Mr. Houston, they said, is but one example.
In the nearly six years that Ms. Kagan was dean, from 2003 to 2009, she hired a total of 43 permanent, full-time faculty members, 32 of whom were tenured and tenured-track. Of those, 25 were white men, 6 were white women and one was an Asian-American woman. Of the other 11, 6 were white men, 2 were women and 3 were minority men (2 black and one Indian), according to a law school official.
Law school officials said the numbers did not reflect the whole story because offers were made to other minority and women scholars; some were declined and some still open. But others said the record spoke for itself.
“Kagan’s performance as dean at Harvard raises doubts about her commitment to equality for traditionally disadvantaged groups,” Guy-Uriel Charles, a black law professor at Duke, wrote last month in an oft-cited post.
During roughly the same period that Ms. Kagan was at Harvard, Mr. Charles wrote, Yale Law School hired just 10 faculty members; 5 were women, and only one was a minority.
Ms. Kagan’s track record on diversity improved during the last year when she became solicitor general. In that office, she has hired six people — three women and three men (one white, one Asian and one Indian).
Lester K. Spence, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins University, wrote on theroot.com, a Web site devoted to black issues, that Ms. Kagan appeared to be more concerned with ideological diversity than with diversity of race or gender.
Elena Kagan's time at Harvard is under debate. Ms. Kagan, right, visited Senator Susan Collins on Capitol Hill on Thursday. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
“President Obama wants us to support his choice not because she’s got a strong record, not even because she has a particularly visible record, but because he knows her,” Mr. Spence wrote. “I’m not buying it,” he added. “And even if Kagan ends up being the best justice this side of Thurgood Marshall, you shouldn’t either.”
After it was clear that Mr. Obama, the first black president, would nominate Ms. Kagan, several black women wrote to him saying they were disappointed that he had not nominated a black woman.
The women, who included Melanie Campbell of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, also said they wanted to learn more about Ms. Kagan’s record on civil rights.
The administration has been pushing back against any suggestion that Ms. Kagan has been insensitive on racial matters, as have some of her black supporters.
Ronald S. Sullivan, a black law professor whom Ms. Kagan recruited to Harvard, wrote on thegrio.com, another site devoted to black issues, that “no elite law school has done enough” with respect to minority hiring. But, he noted, her spurning of the Royall chair “was a significant statement made by the dean of one of the nation’s top law schools.“
And, he said, Ms. Kagan had expanded the clinical teaching program at Harvard so that “thousands of indigent and under-represented citizens received quality legal services that they otherwise would not have been able to afford.”
Randall L. Kennedy, another black professor at Harvard Law, also strongly defended Ms. Kagan’s hiring practices. He said in an article in The Huffington Post that no dean was solely responsible for hiring faculty, with each one requiring a majority if not a supermajority of votes. This, he said, gets to be a complicated proposition.
Still, he said, Ms. Kagan supported programs that have helped advance minorities, and she helped form a committee to identify promising racial minority candidates.
While she was dean, an average of about 30 percent of the entering classes were minorities, up from about 25 percent in the previous six years, according to a Harvard official.
One of Ms. Kagan’s strongest backers has been Charles J. Ogletree Jr., perhaps the most prominent black law professor at Harvard. He has noted in interviews and articles that she has been supportive of men and women of color among both students and faculty.
“If you look at her whole record, ” Mr. Ogletree said in an interview on Thursday with Essence.com, “I think it tells you that she worked diligently to make opportunities available for others. The questions about who she recommended and who was tenured are fair, and I think she’ll be able to respond to them.”
I would suggest that our once strongest public education system in the world----CALIFORNIA with tons of K-12, community and university systems teaching students to BE CITIZENS AND LEADERS----and University of Berkeley was central in all of the protests of the 1960-70s-----a hotbed of left political discussions and activities.....killed during a REAGAN now BROWN governorship with appointed state education governance boards-----with apppointed DEANS ----all corporate all hiring global Wall Street professors these few decades and VOILA----we have no left voice coming even from our strongest public universities.
Berkeley for these few decades has been the same as a STANFORD----global Wall Street, ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE Foreign Economic Zone neo-liberalism.
Here we see the kinds of appointments being made---- the article states there is a history of sexual harassment on a campus that led the women's rights movement.
THIS IS ALSO WHY A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY WOULD CHOOSE TO PROTEST AGAINST A TRUMP AND NOT A GLOBAL WALL STREET 1% HILLARY.
U.C. Berkeley Law dean on ‘indefinite leave of absence’ after sexual harassment suit
By Lindsey Bever March 10, 2016
(U.C. Berkeley Law School)Officials at the University of California at Berkeley said Wednesday night the dean of their prestigious law school is taking an “indefinite leave of absence” from his position after he was sued for sexual harassment by his former executive assistant, who claims he made inappropriate advances toward her.
The complaint was filed Tuesday against Berkeley Law Dean Sujit Choudhry and the University of California Board of Regents, claiming sexual harassment, retaliation and failure to stop it, among other actions.
Tyann Sorrell, the former executive assistant, claims in the lawsuit that from September 2014 to March 2015, Choudhry sexually harassed her — rubbing her shoulders and arms, kissing her cheeks and giving her bear hugs that pressed her body against him, according to court documents.
Sujit Choudhry (U.C. Berkeley School of Law)Sorrell claims that when she told supervisors, they first failed to stop Choudhry, and then tried to retaliate.
University Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Claude Steele said in a statement Wednesday night that Choudhry will be “stepping down to his faculty position and salary” and the school will name an interim dean.
“A thorough investigation of this case found that Dean Choudhry’s behavior in this situation violated policy,” Steele said, “and that he demonstrated a failure to understand the power dynamic and the effect of his actions on the plaintiff personally and in her employment.
“Based on the findings of the investigation I believed that a combination of disciplinary actions, monitoring of his behavior and formal training would be an appropriate and effective response, and would produce the necessary changes in his behavior.”
Choudhry has not yet spoken publicly about the allegations against him.
Indeed, Berkeley Law — one of the nation’s top law schools — has a history with sexual harassment allegations against its leaders.
In 2002, the school’s then-dean, John Dwyer, resigned after he was accused of sexually harassing a former law student, according to the Daily Californian.
The student newspaper reported at that time that Dwyer had “admitted to having a single consensual encounter with a student two years ago but denied charges of sexual harassment.”
“I acknowledge that this reflected a serious error in judgment on my part and was inappropriate,” he had written in an internal memo, according to the newspaper. “I believe I can no longer effectively lead the school.”
In 2012, Sorrell said she began working in for then-dean Christopher Edley.
Choudhry took over the position in July 2014, according to the university.
Soon after, Sorrell claims, Choudhry started to initiate sexual contact.
Sorrell, a 41-year-old mother of five, claims in the lawsuit that “Choudhry’s kissing and hugging plaintiff was a near daily occurrence.”
“The hugs became tighter and more lingering and the kissing more intimate in that over time Choudhry’s kisses began to land closer and closer” to her mouth, according to the court documents.
“She wondered what she had done to make him think it was OK for him to touch her,” according to the documents. “She was worried about her reputation and what her work colleagues thought of her. At the same time, she worried about upsetting him and possibly losing her job, on which her family depended.”
Sorrell said she is a victim of domestic and sexual abuse and claims in the lawsuit that the unwanted sexual contact made her anxious and depressed — causing her to lose sleep and dread her going to work.
She said she suffered “insomnia, hair loss, depression and anxiety” as a result.
[Lawsuit claims teaching assistants at Amherst were told to sleep with students to boost enrollment]
By March 2015, Sorrell said she had “had enough” and wrote a six-page email to Choudhry, telling him she felt “violated and humiliated” and forwarded the email to human resources, according to court documents.
It was reported to U.C. Berkeley’s Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination.
“During the investigation, Dean Choudhry admitted to hugging, kissing, messaging (sic) and/or caressing” her several times a week, according to the documents. He purportedly said he had grabbed her hands, “putting them on his waist.
“He also admitted to hugging and kissing other female employees.”
Many of these claims are also detailed in the investigation report from the Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination, which found in July 2015 that Choudhry had violated the university’s policy on sexual harassment and violence.
Steele, the university’s executive vice chancellor and provost, said Wednesday night that he had cut Choudhry’s salary as dean by 10 percent as well as ordered him apologize to Sorrell and seek counseling at his own expense.
But Sorrell claims in the lawsuit that following those disciplinary actions, the university official told her that he had “seriously considered terminating the dean but that the reason he had decided not to was because it would ruin the dean’s career, that is, destroy his future chances for higher appointment.”
Sorrell said she tried “in vain to determine the reasoning” behind the decision.
Steele said he also gave Sorrell paid administrative leave, which she is still on.
The Berkeley School of Law was ranked No. 8 in the most recent U.S. News & World Report list of best American law schools.
The law school has pioneered curriculums like intellectual property law and technology-related law and offers specialized curricular programs in areas such as Energy and Clean Technology Law and Environmental Law.
In 2002, amid allegations against then-dean Dwyer, the university issued a response, stating that after the former law student filed a complaint, the administration opened a “confidential” investigation.
“Within days conversations were undertaken with the complainant, her attorney, the dean and campus lawyers,” the university said at the time. “In these discussions, her attorney raised additional issues not included in the original complaint, alleging that the campus was not in compliance with federal and state law under Title IX, which addresses sexual harassment and complaint procedures.”
Officials said Dwyer chose to resign, “citing a serious error in judgment.”
In addition, the university said it would review its sexual harassment policies and training techniques.
In response to the Choudhry allegations, Steele, the university’s executive vice chancellor and provost, said the goal is to eliminate sexual harassment and discrimination on campus.
“I intend to listen carefully to what members of our campus community and others have to suggest when it comes to how we prevent and respond to incidents like these,” he said Wednesday night in his statement.
Choudhry is “an internationally recognized authority on comparative constitutional law and comparative constitutional development,” according to his Berkeley Law biography. He has served as a consultant to the World Bank Institute and is a member of the United Nations Mediation Roster.
Here we see Choudhry's connection for appointment by whom? GOVERNOR BROWN ----A RAGING GLOBAL WALL STREET 1% NEO-LIBERAL.
Choudhry is at our finest public university of Berkeley doing just what a Kagan was doing at Harvard----they are both steeped in constitutional law geared to ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE----not US Constitutional law. Obama was the same----he was tied to scholarship in making a new constitutional status taking the US to a ONE WORLD CONTROL OF GOVERNANCE AND LAW.
Here is Choudhry tied to WORLD BANK----now, Berkeley is a public university and yet all we see is global Wall Street----there will be nothing coming from our once strongest public University of Berkeley----but the same global FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE NEO-LIBERALISM.
MOONBEAM GOVERNOR BROWN touted as a really progressive pols----MAKING THE RICH PROGRESSIVELY RICHER. We must stop allowing this capture of our people's Democratic Party. We cannot just create another party if the problem is the RIGGING OF ELECTIONS.
'Choudhry is “an internationally recognized authority on comparative constitutional law and comparative constitutional development,” according to his Berkeley Law biography. He has served as a consultant to the World Bank Institute and is a member of the United Nations Mediation Roster. He has served as a consultant to the World Bank Institute and is a member of the United Nations Mediation Roster'.
Here we see former Homeland Security NAPOLITANO-----having no education background but appointed as CHANCELLOR of the once strongest public education system in the world. NAPOLITANO was appointed again----by MOONBEAM CLINTON GLOBAL WALL STREET BROWN.
UC Berkeley chancellor defends provost under fire in sexual harassment case
The recent sexual harassment scandal at UC Berkeley has spread to Provost Claude Steele.
(Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times)
Teresa WatanabeContact ReporterDid a high-ranking UC Berkeley official go easy on a law school dean accused of sexual harassment in order to secure a faculty appointment for himself?
No way, said Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks.
"This is absolutely untrue," Dirks said in a statement Friday.
His comments follow the revelation last week that Provost Claude Steele allowed the dean of the Berkeley Law School, Sujit Choudhry, to remain in his post despite the fact that he repeatedly kissed, hugged and touched his former assistant against her will.
If you're a Veteran do this now! Here is a Checklist of $42k in VA benefits that All Veterans should...
After investigators in Berkeley's Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination made that determination last July, Steele ordered a 10% cut in Choudhry's $415,000 annual salary, required him to attend counseling and ordered him to apologize to the assistant, Tyann Sorrell.
While the case was still under investigation in May, Choudhry urged the law school faculty to let Steele join their ranks, according to documents obtained by The Times.
However, it is not clear whether Steele was aware that Choudhry was under investigation at the time his appointment was being considered.
Steele declined a request for an interview.
But Dirks came to his defense, saying concerns that Steele imposed lenient sanctions in exchange for the law school appointment were completely unfounded.
He added that he -- not Choudhry -- was the one who suggested that Steele join the law school faculty.
UC President Janet Napolitano also spoke up for Steele, calling him "an eminent scholar" whose social psychology research "made him a valuable addition to the law school faculty."
Steele was asked about the questionable timing at a March 10 faculty meeting and denied there was a connection, according to law school sources. But he agreed at the meeting to resign from the law school appointment, which the faculty approved in voting last June.
Choudhry pressed for Steele's appointment in a May 29 email to the law school faculty.
"When his term comes to an end, Provost Steele may wish to return to full-time research and education," Choudhry wrote in the email. Although Steele already had appointments in the Department of Psychology and the Graduate School of Education, he said adding Steele to the law school's roster would be an "excellent opportunity" for Berkeley.
In what Choudhry called an "unusual and exceptional procedure," he asked for an online vote rather than the traditional process of at least two meetings with the candidate.
Steele has been widely criticized for his handling of the case against Choudhry, who resigned as dean last week after Sorrell sued him for sexual harassment. Faculty, students and staff at the law school became aware of the harassment only when the suit was filed.
Dirks said that Steele did not choose to keep his decision secret from law school members but that discretion was "expected by the systemwide university regulations that guide these investigations."
In a statement this week, the law school's six associate deans said that faculty members were unaware of the sexual harassment investigation when they approved Steele's appointment in June. The deans called him an "extraordinarily well-regarded scholar, who clearly meets the standards for an appointment to the law school," but said it was better that he stepped down.
"We believe that Steele's resignation is in the best interest of the law school at this time and will allow the interim dean to assume that post without any concerns about the appointment process," the statement said.
Dirks said he and Steele believed the resignation was regrettable but "a necessary step toward ensuring the stability of the school in the wake of the Choudhry investigation."
Some law school members support further action.
Robert Berring, a law professor at Berkeley for more than three decades, said Steele should resign his position as provost as well. He said it was "unconscionable" for Steele to allow Choudhry to remain at the law school after admitting to sexual harassment, potentially endangering others.
"He has lost credibility with a wide swath of faculty and certainly with most students," Berring said of Steele. "He's really failed in a major way to understand the dynamics of the situation. It looks as if you're a powerful enough person, you get special treatment."
The Boalt Hall Student Assn. is demanding an outside investigation and asked that Steele be barred from overseeing any sexual harassment cases until that investigation is completed.
A coalition of 13 Berkeley law journals issued a joint statement condemning the entire affair.
"Too often, the safety of women is subordinated to the career interests of men," the statement said. "Until there is a real threat of serious sanctions, up to and including termination, we can only expect sexual harassment and assault to recur."
I do nothing but out how bad it is for Baltimore and for public policy and global corporate growth overseas to have a very, very, very, very BUSH/BLOOMBERG neo-conservative Johns Hopkins controlling all of our government agencies----all political cronyism in Baltimore----and what is very bad public health policy. Here we see where the same executives are sent around just as a revolving door at Wall Street and our Federal Financial oversight agencies-----here we have that private global corporate Jesuit LOYOLA-----embracing the executives we are fighting hard to get rid of in these global IVY LEAGUE hedge funds. Baltimore's higher education is totally taken by the power of global Wall Street and it is why there is absolutely no voice left labor and justice or educating against ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES handing all wealth and power to a global 1% and their 2%----this is what is killing AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION---K-UNIVERSITY.
When I first moved to Baltimore a little over 10 years ago I sat next to a Loyola alumni and I asked---why is a religious institution offering all kinds of Wall Street and MBA degrees when the entire system is infused with fraud and corruption----he said----WE THOUGHT TO MAKE IT LESS CRIMINAL----well, I have not in 10 years seen any connections that are not raging global Wall Street, fraud, and corruption. You don't fight the beast by promoting their executives
When I first moved to Baltimore a little over 10 years ago I sat next to a Loyola alumni and I asked---why is a religious institution offering all kinds of Wall Street and MBA degrees when the entire system is infused with fraud and corruption----he said----WE THOUGHT TO MAKE IT LESS CRIMINAL----well, I have not in 10 years seen any connections that are not raging global Wall Street, fraud, and corruption. You don't fight the beast by promoting their executives.
It is this partnership of private education institutions-----that has kept Baltimore and its citizens from having strong, democratic, broad citizenship education and having those public schools being the source of labor and justice activism----it is the posers sending leaders to pretend global Wall Street will take care of us.
Let's be clear----the students and executives at these IVY LEAGUE and private universities are NOT EXCEPTIONAL-----they are tracked to these schools by connections.
It is incredible the amount of injustice in Baltimore all tied to a Wall Street Baltimore Development and Johns Hopkins control of all governance----having any religious supporters.....the damage done globally by Hopkins and its foreign policy is TREMENDOUS.
Ronald R. Peterson, president of Johns Hopkins Health System and executive vice president of Johns Hopkins Medicine, named Loyola’s Business Leader of the Year
August 1, 2016 | By Stephanie Weaver
Ronald R. Peterson, president of Johns Hopkins Health System and executive vice president of Johns Hopkins Medicine, has been named Business Leader of the Year for 2016 by Loyola University Maryland’s Sellinger School of Business and Management. The award honors business executives who embody Loyola’s Jesuit commitment to community and service in the leadership of their organization.
Peterson will be honored at Loyola’s annual Business Leader of the Year dinner on Monday, Nov. 7, 2016, at the Renaissance Harborplace Hotel in Baltimore.
“In his decades of leadership, Mr. Peterson has significantly strengthened Johns Hopkins Health System and Johns Hopkins Medicine’s position at the forefront of scientific discovery and health care innovation, helping to establish Baltimore as one of the nation’s top urban areas for patient care, research, and education,” said Kathleen A. Getz, Ph.D., dean of the Sellinger School. “His aspirational vision has ensured that the growing network of excellent Hopkins facilities and practitioners continues to consistently provide patients with accessible care of the highest quality in an increasingly complex industry and marketplace.”
Peterson joined Hopkins in 1973 as an administrative resident. Throughout his first years at Hopkins, he served as an administrator of the Henry Phipps Psychiatric Clinic, the Hopkins Hospital's Cost Improvement Program, and the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center.
One of Peterson’s many accomplishments with Hopkins was his role in the transformation of the former Baltimore City Hospitals into what is now Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center. In 1982, he was dispatched to the former Baltimore City Hospitals to serve as director under a management contract with the City. He then led the acquisition effort, which resulted in the transfer of ownership to Hopkins in July 1984. From then until 1999, he served as president of the medical center and oversaw a $100 million redevelopment program.
In 1995, while still serving as president of Bayview, Peterson was named executive vice president and chief operating officer of Johns Hopkins Health System. He was named acting president of The Johns Hopkins Hospital and Health System in September 1996, and those positions became permanent in the months that followed. Since 1998, he has also served as the executive vice president of Johns Hopkins Medicine, the formal alliance between Johns Hopkins Health System and the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
After 20 years as president of The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Peterson stepped down as part of an orderly succession plan in July 2016 to concentrate more fully on his Health System and Medicine roles. He oversees the six hospitals of Johns Hopkins Health System, including The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Howard County General Hospital, Suburban Hospital, Sibley Memorial Hospital, and Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg, Fla.
He serves as chairman of Johns Hopkins Community Physicians, which provides ambulatory care at 40 locations throughout Maryland and the Washington, D.C., area. He is also a director of Johns Hopkins HealthCare, the Johns Hopkins Home Care Group, and Johns Hopkins Medicine International.
Peterson was born in New Brunswick, N.J., and now lives in Bel Air, Md., with his wife, Elizabeth. Peterson is a graduate of Johns Hopkins University, and holds a master’s in hospital administration from The George Washington University. His daughter, Susie, is a graduate of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, where she is currently on the faculty. His son, Joe, is an attorney in Baltimore. Peterson is the proud grandfather of four grandsons.
The Loyola University Maryland Sellinger School of Business and Management has honored a Business Leader of the Year since 1983, recognizing those whose vision, dedicated effort, and singular commitment to the highest ideals of business have distinguished them and their organizations as among the very best in the nation. More than 800 executives and managers from Maryland’s most prestigious public, private, and non-profit organizations attend the event each year. Joe Sullivan, chairman and chief executive officer of Legg Mason Inc., was honored in 2015.
We will spend this week looking at education from all these directions. It is no coincidence that US EDUCATION AND HEALTH CARE were two of the last taken totally to global Wall Street policy these several years------our health care access and opportunity is LIFE AND DEATH for WE THE PEOPLE. Our public education structure is LIFE AND DEATH of WE THE PEOPLE AS CITIZENS WITH RIGHTS and guaranteed the right to legislate-----because of how important it is global Wall Street is putting lots of faces of people looking like the population groups who will be most harmed in these dismantlements.
Below we see global Wall Street's BFF----O'Malley as Governor appointing NEW MEMBERS TO A BALTIMORE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD. O'Malley is of course responsible for the Baltimore City schools being the worst in the nation-----making all that is public education private and our county citizens pride themselves in having strong public schools. Well, we can be sure that no one O'Malley appoints will be pro-public education---they will be pro-privatized national charter chains and global corporate campus schools.
Sure enough many Baltimore County citizens are shouting as loudly as Baltimore City citizens are against this attack on our ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL PUBLIC K-UNIVERSITY.
O'Malley Appoints New Members To Board Of Education For Baltimore County
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Ashley Michelle Williams
- (AP Photo)
Governor Martin OÆMalley announced Tuesday that he has appointed three new members and reappointed one existing member to the Board of Education for Baltimore County Public Schools.
According to OÆMalley's office, Marisol A. Johnson, Edward J. Gilliss and Jonathan P. Galla are new appointees who will serve on the board beginning this summer. Johnson and Gilliss will serve five-year terms replacing outgoing members Cornelia Bright Gordon and Valerie Roddy, respectively. Galla, the boardÆs student representative, will serve a one-year term.
Johnson will serve the board as a member at large. She is the owner and CEO of The Johnson Insurance and Financial Service Agency and an active member in the Parent Teacher Association at Summit Park Elementary School. SheÆs also an advisory board member for the Youth Dreamers of Baltimore, a board member for the Druid Heights Community Center and a member of the Baltimore County Chamber of Commerce.
Gilliss will represent Council district five on the board. He is an attorney practicing civil litigation, administrative law and wills and estate administration as a partner with the Royston, Mueller, McLean & Reid firm in Towson. He is the vice chairman of the board for the University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center and recently served as chairman of the Baltimore County Planning Board and county attorney for Baltimore County.
Galla is a junior at Hereford High School and a member of the National Honors Society, Mu Alpha Theta (the mathematics honors society) and the Tri-M Honors Society (the music honors society).
David Uhlfelder was reappointed to the board for a second five-year term. A member at large, he is a certified public accountant and President of the David Uhlfelder, P.A. accounting and management consulting firm.
Baltimore County Public Schools, the nationÆs 26th largest school district, educates more than 107,000 students each year.
It was the Republican right wing voters who were fooled by POLS POSING CONSERVATIVE that these charter and choice school policies were community and parent-based when the goal was never either. Today both Republican and Democratic voters are shouting STOP PRIVATIZING AND CORPORATIZING OUR K-UNIVERSITY. Maryland and Baltimore parents are shouting as loudly so don't belief when you see polls or data saying all these policies from Race to the Top are working----everyone loves them-----because they ARE LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING OUR FEDERAL PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING.
Here we see REAGAN/CLINTON doing a K-12 education reform that deliberately dumbed down our strong classroom lesson rigor. I received my education degree at that time with the university education professors literally mourning the attach on public education policy. They knew back in 1990 these policies would end badly----and indeed the highest percentage of students not able to read or do math resulted. THIS WAS THE REAGAN/CLINTON GLOBAL WALL STREET EDUCATION LEGACY and it is still MOVING FORWARD for goodness sake.
GET RID OF ALL GLOBAL WALL STREET PLAYERS!
The Myth Behind Public School Failure
In the rush to privatize the country’s schools, corporations and politicians have decimated school budgets, replaced teaching with standardized testing, and placed the blame on teachers and students.
Dean Paton posted Feb 21, 2014Until about 1980, America’s public schoolteachers were iconic everyday heroes painted with a kind of Norman Rockwell patina—generally respected because they helped most kids learn to read, write and successfully join society. Such teachers made possible at least the idea of a vibrant democracy.
Click here to subscribe to YES!
Since then, what a turnaround: We’re now told, relentlessly, that bad-apple schoolteachers have wrecked K-12 education; that their unions keep legions of incompetent educators in classrooms; that part of the solution is more private charter schools; and that teachers as well as entire schools lack accountability, which can best be remedied by more and more standardized “bubble” tests.What led to such an ignoble fall for teachers and schools? Did public education really become so irreversibly terrible in three decades? Is there so little that’s redeemable in today’s schoolhouses?
The beginning of “reform”
To truly understand how we came to believe our educational system is broken, we need a history lesson. Rewind to 1980—when Milton Friedman, the high priest of laissez-faire economics, partnered with PBS to produce a ten-part television series called Free to Choose. He devoted one episode to the idea of school vouchers, a plan to allow families what amounted to publicly funded scholarships so their children could leave the public schools and attend private ones.
You could make a strong argument that the current campaign against public schools started with that single TV episode. To make the case for vouchers, free-market conservatives, corporate strategists, and opportunistic politicians looked for any way to build a myth that public schools were failing, that teachers (and of course their unions) were at fault, and that the cure was vouchers and privatization.
Jonathan Kozol, the author and tireless advocate for public schools, called vouchers the “single worst, most dangerous idea to have entered education discourse in my adult life.”
Armed with Friedman’s ideas, President Reagan began calling for vouchers. In 1983, his National Commission on Excellence in Education issued “A Nation At Risk,” a report that declared, “the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people.”
It also said, “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.”
For a document that’s had such lasting impact, “A Nation At Risk” is remarkably free of facts and solid data. Not so the Sandia Report, a little-known follow-up study commissioned by Admiral James Watkins, Reagan’s secretary of energy; it discovered that the falling test scores which caused such an uproar were really a matter of an expansion in the number of students taking the tests. In truth, standardized-test scores were going up for every economic and ethnic segment of students—it’s just that, as more and more students began taking these tests over the 20-year period of the study, this more representative sample of America’s youth better reflected the true national average. It wasn’t a teacher problem. It was a statistical misread.
The government never officially released the Sandia Report. It languished in peer-review purgatory until the Journal of Educational Research published it in 1993. Despite its hyperbole (or perhaps because of it), “A Nation At Risk” became a timely cudgel for the larger privatization movement. With Reagan and Friedman, the Nobel-Prize-winning economist, preaching that salvation would come once most government services were turned over to private entrepreneurs, the privatizers began proselytizing to get government out of everything from the post office to the public schools.
Corporations recognized privatization as a euphemism for profits. “Our schools are failing” became the slogan for those who wanted public-treasury vouchers to move money into private schools. These cries continue today.
The era of accountability
In 2001, less than a year into the presidency of George W. Bush, the federal government enacted sweeping legislation called “No Child Left Behind.” Supporters described it as a new era of accountability—based on standardized testing. The act tied federal funding for public schools to student scores on standardized tests. It also guaranteed millions in profits to corporations such as Pearson PLC, the curriculum and testing juggernaut, which made more than $1 billion in 2012 selling textbooks and bubble tests.
In 2008, the economy collapsed. State budgets were eviscerated. Schools were desperate for funding. In 2009, President Obama and his Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, created a program they called “Race to the Top.”
It didn’t replace No Child Left Behind; it did step in with grants to individual states for their public schools. Obama and Duncan put desperate states in competition with each other. Who got the money was determined by several factors, including which states did the best job of improving the performance of failing schools—which, in practice, frequently means replacing public schools with for-profit charter schools—and by a measure of school success based on students’ standardized-test scores that allegedly measured “progress.”
Since 2001 and No Child Left Behind, the focus of education policy makers and corporate-funded reformers has been to insist on more testing—more ways to quantify and measure the kind of education our children are getting, as well as more ways to purportedly quantify and measure the effectiveness of teachers and schools.
For a dozen or so years, this “accountability movement” was pretty much the only game in town. It used questionable, even draconian, interpretations of standardized-test results to brand schools as failures, close them, and replace them with for-profit charter schools.
Finally, in early 2012, then-Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott kindled a revolt of sorts, saying publicly that high-stakes exams are a “perversion.” His sentiments quickly spread to Texas school boards, whose resolution stating that tests were “strangling education” gained support from more than 875 school districts representing more than 4.4 million Texas public-school students. Similar, if smaller, resistance to testing percolated in other communities nationally.
Then, in January 2013, teachers at Seattle’s Garfield High School announced they would refuse to give their students the Measures of Academic Progress Test—the MAP test. Despite threats of retaliation by their district, they held steadfast. By May, the district caved, telling its high schools the test was no longer mandatory.
Garfield’s boycott triggered a nationwide backlash to the “reform” that began with Friedman and the privatizers in 1980. At last, Americans from coast to coast have begun redefining the problem for what it really is: not an education crisis but a manufactured catastrophe, a facet of what Naomi Klein calls “disaster capitalism.”
Look closely—you’ll recognize the formula: Underfund schools. Overcrowd classrooms. Mandate standardized tests sold by private-sector firms that “prove” these schools are failures. Blame teachers and their unions for awful test scores. In the bargain, weaken those unions, the largest labor organizations remaining in the United States. Push nonunion, profit-oriented charter schools as a solution.
If a Hurricane Katrina or a Great Recession comes along, all the better. Opportunities for plunder increase as schools go deeper into crisis, whether genuine or ginned up.
The reason for privatization
Chris Hedges, the former New York Times correspondent, appeared on Democracy Now! in 2012 and told host Amy Goodman the federal government spends some $600 billion a year on education—“and the corporations want it. That’s what’s happening. And that comes through charter schools. It comes through standardized testing. And it comes through breaking teachers’ unions and essentially hiring temp workers, people who have very little skills.”
If you doubt Hedges, at least trust Rupert Murdoch, the media mogul and capitalist extraordinaire whose Amplify corporation already is growing at a 20 percent rate, thanks to its education contracts. “When it comes to K through 12 education,” Murdoch said in a November 2010 press release, “we see a $500 billion sector in the U.S. alone that is waiting desperately to be transformed by big breakthroughs that extend the reach of great teaching.”
Corporate-speak for, “Privatize the public schools. Now, please.”
In a land where the free market has near-religious status, that’s been the answer for a long time. And it’s always been the wrong answer. The problem with education is not bad teachers making little Johnny into a dolt. It’s about Johnny making big corporations a bundle—at the expense of the well-educated citizenry essential to democracy.
And, of course, it’s about the people and ideas now reclaiming and rejuvenating our public schools and how we all can join the uprising against the faux reformers.
For those citizens still thinking there will be ANY DIVERSITY in what Race to the Top is creating------please think about what a ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE ONE COMMON CORE GLOBAL NEO-LIBERAL EDUCATION would care about DIVERSITY-----the goal of ONE WORLD is to end diversity creating one common societal and cultural structure. They PRETEND to be diverse because they have POSE SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE----WE ARE HELPING THE GLOBAL POOR REACH EDUCATION-----
I chose this article to look from where the right wing is coming on these issues. COMMON CORE comes from the BUSH ADMINISTRATION-----it was Bush partnered with global corporations like Bill Gates who championed this idea of ONE WORLD ONE EDUCATION COMMON CORE. Tying COMMON CORE to yet again nations Republicans love to call terrorist or Islamic infiltration----IS HOGWASH. GLOBAL COMMON CORE is being installed in all nations having Foreign Economic Zones------indeed Qatar-----Saudi Arabia have Foreign Economic Zones-----as does China, Malaysia, Peru, Mexico all being forced to install GLOBAL COMMON CORE. This is a far-right wing capture of information----it has nothing to do with being left social Democratic-----left socialist or communist---this is far-right wing corporate FASCISM.
Common Core ties to Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, left, greets U.S. President Barack Obama upon his arrival at Qubba palace in Cairo, Egypt, Thursday, June 4, 2009. President Obama is due to address the Muslim world in a speech during his visit to Egypt.
By Bethany Blankley - - Tuesday, April 7, 2015 “Where did Common Core come from?” is a question I often hear from parents as I travel the country speaking about the Islamic infiltration of America.
Because in 2014-15 America, public school students via Common Core are:
• Participating in public school-sponsored trips to mosques via taxpayer expense, girls must wear head scarves (Colorado parents complain)
• Debating whether or not the Holocaust was “merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain,” (an eighth-grade assignment defended by the Rialto Unified School District, Los Angeles)
When we discussed the old world MERCHANTS OF VENICE 500-1500 AD we discussed today's global Wall Street bringing back early religious mysticism as a way to implant the idea that GOD IS IN ALL HUMAN ACTIONS GOOD AND BAD. This is an attempt to give cover to PRAGMATIC NILISM-----DOING ANYTHING TO ACCUMULATE WEALTH AND POWER. The most powerful driver of WW 1 and 2 was as we said the global Robber Barons and their use of Wall Street and UK banks to fill the global economy with fraud just as happened these few decades. This was what angry global citizens called IMPERIALISM and it was. Who was a scapegoat for rich white bankers from US and UK stealing money around the world-----the Jewish citizens. The creation of a Jewish State was critical for the global Jewish citizens because they needed sovereign space to feel protected and NO, NOT ALL JEWISH CITIZENS ARE TIED TO THESE FRAUDS AND CORRUPTION----as with Catholics, Protestants, Muslim-----all religious groups have PLAYER PRETENDING TO BE RELIGIOUS.
One thing I liked about 9 1/2 MYSTICS was the end where the author reveals he is an American Reformed Rabbi who later is appointed to install the HEBREW UNIVERSITY in Israel-----now, one thing Jewish religious leaders and citizens learned over a thousand years---THEY DON'T WANT TO BE TIED TO THAT 5% TO THE 1% AND ESPECIALLY TO IMPERIALISM......and that is what many native Israeli's fought in the bringing of HEBREW REFORMED JEWISH university to the very place that would want to escape it. Make no mistake----American Imperialism is not American----it is old world global 1% and back then the JEWISH MERCHANTS OF VENICE were not practicing religion and neither were the Catholic Merchants.
The Israeli rabbis were literally fearful of what bringing a HEBREW UNIVERSITY ----FILLED WITH IMPERIALISM AND GLOBAL WALL STREET---would do to this ancient Jewish religion. They feared it would be KILLED. I do not know the drivers of these protests in Israel but I do know that to identify US universities as the source of IMPERIALISM AND BANNING THEM FROM ISRAEL is a good thing. That is a good left social activism. What I worry about is the attachment of SOCIALISM----AS THE NEXT STAGE OF ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE---as Hebrew University would promote.
'Several lessons may be drawn from the Salaita case in relation to the larger campus movement against Israeli apartheid. First, his firing exposes the structural and ideological complicity between university campus administrations and state support for Israel. Phyllis Wise was one of more than 250 university presidents and chancellors who opposed the ASA vote to boycott Israeli universities last December. The rejection was a reminder that university chancellors and boards of trustees at state universities like those at UIUC are typically appointed by state governors and receive funding from state legislatures, all of which act as watchdogs for US interests in Israel. Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, for example, who appointed eight of the eleven UIUC Board of Trustees, is a strong ally of Israel and Zionist groups in Chicago. Two members of the Illinois State Senate, Peter Roskam and Dan Lipinksi, sponsored federal legislation seeking to withdraw state support from academics who engage in the boycott.19 Ira Silverstein, a Chicago Democrat, introduced separate legislation in the Illinois Senate seeking to do the same.20 In firing Salaita, an open advocate for the academic boycott, UIUC leadership acted in loco parentis for Zionist interests at the state level'.
Palestine, BDS, and the battle against US imperialism
By Bill Mullen
The end of calendar year 2014 marks the ten-year anniversary of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) and the one-year anniversary of the vote by the American Studies Association (ASA) to boycott Israeli universities. These events bookend what has become one of the most effective contemporary challenges to the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the “special relationship” between Israel and the United States. Especially since the end of the Second Intifada in 2005, the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions Movement (BDS) has served as the most sustainable wedge for building both international solidarity against Israel’s long-time role as US “watchdog” in the Middle East and opposition to Israel’s settler-colonial apartheid state.
The success of BDS is most evident in the academic and cultural boycott movement against Israel on university campuses. Since 2013, resolutions to boycott Israeli universities have been passed by the Association of Asian American Studies, the ASA, Native American and Indigenous Studies Association, Critical Ethnic Studies Association, the Association for Humanist Sociology, and the African Literature Association. Resolutions to divest from Israel have been passed by student senates at five of ten University of California campuses, by student groups at Wesleyan University, by students at York University in Canada, the Irish Student Union in Dublin, Kings College, London, and the London School of Economics. Most recently, more than 500 Middle East scholars and librarians signed a petition calling for academic boycott of Israel.
The forefronting of the academic boycott on university campuses reflects the emergent anti-imperialist consciousness of a post-Intifada, post-9/11 generation of activists whose understanding of US imperialism has largely been shaped by these events. What Ali Abunimah has called the “war on campus” between pro-Palestinian activists and university administrations committed to defending US and Israeli interests represents one of the sharpest politicizations of academia since the Vietnam War. The recent firing of pro-Palestinian Arab American scholar Steven Salaita by the University of Illinois for his public criticism of Israel’s war on Gaza, and the mass campaign on his behalf, is the most apt symbol of that politicization. The unprecedented support for Salaita in the form of 18,000 petition signatures and a wide-scale boycott campaign by 5,000 academics against the University of Illinois are clear indices of the mainstreaming of Palestinian solidarity politics in the United States. The academic boycott movement also represents the first sustained fight back in the academy against more than twenty-five years of Zionist harassment and intimidation of pro-Palestinian scholars.
At the same time, Israel’s latest military assault on Gaza, Operation Protective Edge—which resulted in the loss of 2,200 Palestinian lives and the decimation of the infrastructure of Gaza, but also new expressions of support for Israel from inside both Arab and Western capitalist states—challenges the momentum of the BDS movement. New US alliances with reactionary Middle East states like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates against ISIS constitute a new turn and an expansion of US military intervention in the name of protecting its own and Israel’s interests in the region. In conjunction, these events demand a deepening and sharpening of anti-imperialist analysis and tactics in the BDS movement. The BDS movement also faces the challenge of moving past the university as a primary organizing site. Here, the success of the labor movement in building the BDS campaign against South Africa is most instructive. Prospects for a “South Africa moment” in ending Israeli apartheid—the primary objective of the BDS campaign—depends on constellating responses to each of these challenges into a wider political and social movement.
History and context of the academic and cultural boycott
PACBI (Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel) was launched in 2004 in the West Bank by 170 organizations in Palestinian civil society. PACBI called for a nonviolent boycott and divestment campaign against Israel modeled on general principles of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against South Africa in the 1980s and early 1990s. The guiding principles articulated by the Palestinian Boycott National Committee (BNC) set three demands on Israel as conditions and objectives of BDS:
- Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;
- Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
- Respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.4
The Second Intifada of 2000, itself a response to the bankruptcy of PLO and PA rule, barely preceded the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, where a draft statement opposed “movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas, in particular the Zionist movement, which is based on racial superiority.”7 The conference brought Palestinian activists into dialogue with activists from the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. By 2002, Palestine was riven by checkpoints, and construction of the eight hundred kilometer Apartheid Wall had begun. Archbishop Desmond Tutu also reported after his visit to the Occupied Territories that year stark similarities between the Occupation and South African apartheid. These events helped convince Palestinian activists to adopt the South African boycott and divestment strategy.
The specific call for boycott of Israeli universities was a response to their long history of collaboration with the Occupation. For example:
- Israeli universities provide the military-intelligence establishment of Israel, as PACBI cofounder Omar Barghouti has noted, with research—“on demography, geography, hydrology and psychology, among other disciplines — that directly benefits the occupation.” Israeli universities also commit acts that contravene international law, such as the construction of campuses or dormitories in the occupied Palestinian territory, as Hebrew University has done.
- Israeli universities systematically discriminate against Palestinians. While Palestinians make up 20 percent of the population of Israel, they are less than 10 percent of the university student body, and less than 1 percent of campus staff. According to Uri Jacobi Yeller, “Palestinian applicants are three times as likely to be rejected by Israeli academic institutions than Jewish applicants.” Palestinians are discriminated against in allocation of dormitories, which is based largely on military service. Similarly, most scholarship and grants to Israeli universities are based on service in the Israeli Defense Force.
- Israeli universities, like the Technion Institute, produce weaponry that has been used in the killing of more than 1,200 civilians in Lebanon in 2006, Operation Cast Lead in 2008–09, and the recent Operation Protective Edge.
- Israeli universities routinely repress dissent against the Occupation. Ilan Pappé was asked by his university president to resign his position at Haifa University after he openly expressed support for the BDS movement. Amir Hetsroni, a professor at Ariel University in the Occupied West Bank, was fired from his position after publishing an article in Haaretz criticizing the occupation.
USACBI has become the most significant US-based challenge to a longstanding campaign by the US government and its Zionist allies to repress, harass, intimidate, and fire academics who support Palestinian liberation or are critical of Israel. Edward Said for many years faced harassment and accusations of supporting “terrorism” for advocating for Palestinian rights in the academy and for his book Orientalism, a critical history of ethnocentric scholarship on the Asian, Arab, and Islamic worlds. In 2003, University of South Florida professor Sami Al-Arian was charged by the United States with racketeering and conspiracy to commit murder and accused of being the leader of a “terrorist” group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad. His 2005 trial resulted in acquittal on eight counts and a hung jury on nine other counts.10 Finally, in June 2014, all charges against Al-Arian were dropped. In 2007, political scientist Norman Finklestein was denied tenure at DePaul University after a public attack from Zionists like Harvard attorney Alan Dershowitz. Finkelstein had published two books critical of the use of the Holocaust by defenders of Israel to legitimate the occupation of Palestine. Also that year visiting film studies professor Terri Ginsberg was refused consideration for a tenure track position after she made comments supportive of Palestinians at a film screening.
These attacks reflect the deep penetration on US university campuses of anti-Arab organizations and Islamophobic watch groups. After 9/11, the Islamophobic scholar Daniel Pipes set up the website Campus Watch which encouraged students to act as “informants” against professors sympathetic to Islam or critical of Israel. Pipes pressured Congress to hold hearings into National Resource Centers funded by the federal government under Title VI of the Higher Education Act. Pipes and allies like Martin Kramer accused the centers of promoting scholarship that was “anti-Israel.” Also in 2002 the David Project was launched as a Zionist advocacy group meant to target professors sympathetic to Palestine or critical of Israel. The David Project conducted an harassment campaign against Columbia University professor Joseph Massad. In 2012, the David Project published the white paper “A Burning Campus? Rethinking Israel Advocacy at America’s Universities and Colleges,” encouraging a new campaign to combat “anti-Israelism,” specifically the goal of the BDS movement to turn Israel into an “international pariah akin to apartheid South Africa.”12 Lastly there is the AMCHA Initiative, a Zionist advocacy group which has targeted California scholars like California State University, Northridge mathematics professor David Klein and San Francisco State University professor Rabab Abdulhadi. Klein was singled out by AMCHA for opposing a study abroad in Israel program. Abdulhadi was accused by AMCHA of using state funds to meet with “terrorist” organizations when she traveled to Palestine to conduct research.
USACBI in its watchdog capacity has generated statements of support for Klein, Abdulhadi, and other US academics like Steven Salaita, to be discussed below. USACBI has also coordinated with student activists and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapters to build a wider academic and cultural boycott movement. The confluence of faculty and students in the BDS movement is critical to its success. SJP chapters across the United States have become new targets of intimidation by groups like the David Project and AMCHA that had previously focused exclusively on pro-Palestinian faculty. UC Chancellor Mark Yudof formed an “Advisory Council on Campus Climate” in 2012 in response to accusations by Zionist groups that pro-Palestinian groups like SJP were creating a “hostile environment” for Jewish students.
Pro-Palestinian activists have also faced arrest and intimidation. In 2011 the “Irvine 11,” mostly Arab students, were arrested after peacefully protesting the appearance of Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, a former Israeli Defense Forces soldier. In 2013 the Northeastern University Students for Justice in Palestine chapter was temporarily suspended for organizing campus protests. They were reinstated only after a sizable public demonstration.
The rise of SJP chapters across the United States and their general commitment to direct action and challenge of Zionist influence in the academy makes them the most significant political formation on college campuses since the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee of the 1960s. University administrations have in turn made them the central target of rules meant to repress Palestinian voices and defend Zionist interests. At Barnard College, the administration halted a long-time tradition of allowing students to hang banners over a campus archway when SJP activists adorned it with a banner promoting Israeli Apartheid Week reading “Stand for Justice, Stand for Palestine.” The removal of the banner made clear that Palestinian students and student advocates for Palestine were subject to a double standard concerning free speech, and that university administrations were willing to cave in to Zionist pressure groups.
The Steven Salaita case
The recent firing of Arab American faculty member Steven Salaita reflects the mainstreaming of the BDS movement and pro-Palestinian politics on US campuses, while also exposing the new coalescence of Zionist organizations, university administrations, and the state in response to the success of BDS. Salaita is a Palestinian-American scholar and author of six books on indigeneity. In October 2013, he accepted a job offer to work as an associate professor with tenure in the American Indian Studies program at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In preparation, Salaita resigned his tenured position at Virginia Tech University. His wife also resigned her university position. On August 1, two weeks before classes were to begin at UIUC, Salaita received an email from University Chancellor Phyllis Wise indicating that she did not expect the UIUC Board of Trustees to approve Salaita’s appointment. In effect, Salaita was fired from a job he never got to start.
Salaita was fired because of Twitter posts he released attacking the Israeli state and military for its massacre in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge. Salaita was also actively involved in the American Studies Association boycott resolution campaign last November, and published several articles in support of the boycott in the aftermath of the vote. Pressure to fire Salaita came from a public and back-channel campaign by pro-Israel and conservative donors to UIUC who first brought Salaita’s tweets to the attention of UIUC administrators. On July 21, the Daily Caller, a right-wing online paper, accused Salaita of being “anti-Semitic.” The Simon Weisenthal Center subsequently wrote a letter to UIUC President Robert Easter likewise accusing Salaita of being anti-Semitic and arguing that Jewish students on campus might feel threatened by him. Steven N. Miller, a UIUC alumnus, threatened to withhold financial gifts to the university if Salaita were hired.16 Chancellor Wise agreed to rearrange her schedule to meet with a donor in Chicago concerned about Salaita’s appointment. Wise herself is on the board of governors of Nike Corporation, one of whose suppliers is Delta Galil Industries, a textile manufacturer that operates in an illegal West Bank settlement.
On August 22, Wise issued a public letter explaining her decision to fire Salaita.18 In it, she wrote of Salaita’s tweets, “What we cannot and will not tolerate at the University of Illinois are personal and disrespectful words or actions that demean and abuse either viewpoints themselves or those who express them.” The UIUC Board of Trustees issued a statement of support of the Chancellor the same day.
UIUC’s firing of Salaita ignored a public petition signed by more than 18,000 people calling for his reinstatement. It rejected a boycott campaign against UIUC signed by more than 5,000 scholars who vowed not to speak at the campus until Salaita was hired. It neglected an American Association of University Professors letter demanding Salaita’s reinstatement on the basis of violation of his First Amendment rights, academic freedom, and right to due process. UIUC also received letters from the Center for Constitutional Rights, the USACBI, professional academic organizations like the Modern Language Association, and Jewish faculty and students on campus like Michael Rothenberg, head of the Holocaust Studies Institute; all of whom demanded Salaita’s reinstatement and rejected allegations that Salaita’s tweets were anti-Semitic.
Several lessons may be drawn from the Salaita case in relation to the larger campus movement against Israeli apartheid. First, his firing exposes the structural and ideological complicity between university campus administrations and state support for Israel. Phyllis Wise was one of more than 250 university presidents and chancellors who opposed the ASA vote to boycott Israeli universities last December. The rejection was a reminder that university chancellors and boards of trustees at state universities like those at UIUC are typically appointed by state governors and receive funding from state legislatures, all of which act as watchdogs for US interests in Israel. Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, for example, who appointed eight of the eleven UIUC Board of Trustees, is a strong ally of Israel and Zionist groups in Chicago. Two members of the Illinois State Senate, Peter Roskam and Dan Lipinksi, sponsored federal legislation seeking to withdraw state support from academics who engage in the boycott.19 Ira Silverstein, a Chicago Democrat, introduced separate legislation in the Illinois Senate seeking to do the same.20 In firing Salaita, an open advocate for the academic boycott, UIUC leadership acted in loco parentis for Zionist interests at the state level.
Second, the unprecedented national and international solidarity campaign for Salaita represents a watershed moment of political consciousness in the United States around Palestinian solidarity. The campaign was itself built by organizing entities like USACBI and Palestine Solidarity Legal Support that have emerged directly in response to the 2004 call for international solidarity with the Palestinians. Letters and statements of support by professional academic organizations such as the Modern Language Association (MLA) and the ASA reflect the radicalization of these groups around Palestine since the beginning of the academic boycott movement. The January 2014 MLA meeting, for example, produced a positive vote by the delegate assembly of that organization to condemn Israel’s restrictions on scholars seeking to travel in Gaza.21 The Salaita case also drew sympathetic coverage from mainstream media outlets like the Los Angeles Times and Inside Higher Education, reflective of a general media mainstreaming of a pro-Palestinian perspective in the United States.
Third, and most important, the Salaita firing has generated a renewed discussion of worker’s rights and the role of labor organizations in campaigns against Israeli apartheid and in support of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions. The Association of American University Professors (AAUP) letter to UIUC rejected Salaita’s firing as a violation of due process and demanded that the university pay him while his legal case against the university (ongoing) is resolved. The Graduate Employees Organization (GEO) at UIUC released a strong statement in support of Salaita. The first group at University of Illinois to defend Salaita publically was the University of Illinois Campus Faculty Association, a minority union. A September 11 rally on behalf of Salaita and campus workers was jointly sponsored by the Campus Faculty Association and the American Federation of Teachers/Illinois Federation of Teachers Local 6546, representing recently certified non-tenure-track faculty who had been hit with a wage freeze by the same administration that had just fired Salaita. Campus American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) workers and members of UIUC GEO kicked off the rally by pointing out how an injury to Salaita was an injury to all campus workers. The rally was also used as a launching point by representatives from UIUC Campus Faculty Association for a new campaign to organize full-time faculty to make sure that the Salaita firing was not repeated.
The UIUC rally points to an important way forward for the BDS movement. Connecting labor struggles to academic and cultural boycotts can “mainstream” the fightback against campus administrations whose neoliberal strategy of top-down privatization, anti-union policies, and profiteering often intersect with defense of Zionist interests, protection of pro-Israel donors, and the political interdependency of university boards of trustees with the elected political masters who appoint them. Such a strategy would begin to take the best of the South African BDS campaign and put it to new use. The Coalition of South African Trade Unions helped convince members of the Bay Area International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) in 1984 to refuse to offload cargo intended for Israel. The ongoing anti-Israeli apartheid campaigns by United Autoworkers-affiliated graduate student employees unions within the University of California system indicates that such labor anti-apartheid militancy can spread across US campuses.
The recent successful coordination between students and community activists and the ILWU to “Block the Boat” in Oakland, refusing to offload Israeli cargo, is another example; other examples include successful protests against Veolia, the transport company which operates segregated bus systems in Occupied Palestine. Veolia’s apartheid profiteering became part of a public campaign by activists when the company was hired to represent the Bay Area Rapid Transit System in negotiations with unionized workers. Still other examples of recent BDS/labor solidarity include statements of support for fired Palestinian-American scholar Steven Salaita by the Texas State Employees Union, and resolutions passed by the British National Trade Union and the Canadian Union of Public Employees to support boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel. In short, a revitalized labor movement conjoined to an already mobilized BDS campaign can create critical new solidarities in the “war on campus,” in the workplace, and on the streets.24
BDS and the new imperial Mideast war
In mid-September 2014, the United States began a new bombing campaign in the Middle East, targeting ISIS and the “Khorasan Group,” described by the Obama administration as a terrorist cell operating in Syria. The new war is being staged in part as a defense of Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu has already compared ISIS to Hamas. Israel began itinerant bombing against ISIS this summer. On September 16, Newsweek magazine published an article titled “ISIS is Merely the Latest Threat to the Jewish State.”25
The BDS and pro-Palestinian movement must speak directly to this new challenge. ISIS is the fundamentalist monster unleashed by the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, which created the power vacuum ISIS presumes to fill. That invasion was merely the latest in a series of US wars in the Middle East dating to the 1990s, meant to secure its oil interests in the region and to buffer its proxy, Israel. In its attack on ISIS, the United States has allied itself with five Arab states in an attempt to consolidate its hold on the Middle East. At the same time, it has offered to train Syrian rebels against ISIS, forging an alliance with one-time Hamas supporter Bashar Al-Assad of Syria. Assad is the butcher of the ongoing Syrian revolution against a corrupt, anti-democratic regime. Pro-Palestinian activists must argue that opposing Assad is as important as opposing Israel in advancing chances for Palestinian liberation. Meanwhile, Egypt and its counterrevolutionary leader President Sisi is committed to helping to smash Hamas, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood it seeks to punish at home.
The forces of counterrevolution—Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States—are fully aware of the connection between Palestinian liberation and the Arab Spring; the Egyptian revolution at its inception included support for Palestinian self-determination.26 The BDS movement must recognize that the Arab working class of the Middle East remains its most important ally in the region. As Sameh Naguib of the Egyptian Revolutionary Socialists has argued, the liberation of Palestine depends upon a sustained alliance between working classes from Cairo to Ramallah against Arab capitalist states, the US, and Israel.27 Indeed, the original call to boycott Israel by the Palestinian National Committee in 2004 was endorsed by every major trade union in Palestine, including the Palestinian Trade Union Coalition. The campaign was meant to lift the yoke of Israel’s masters while linking arms with workers struggles across the world. This spirit animated the solidarity we saw in 2011 when from Athens to Wisconsin workers chanted “Occupy Wall Street, Not Palestine.”
To further advance its own place in these broader struggles, and to advance these struggles themselves, the BDS movement must continue to underscore its anti-imperialist and antiwar roots. The 2004 PACBI call for boycott, divestment, and sanctions codified demands for Palestinian self-determination that brought thousands of Palestinians into the streets in the First Intifada of 1987-1993 and the Second Intifada of 2000. Since 2005, the BDS campaign has singularly kept alive a spirit of anticolonial, anti-imperialist resistance in the Middle East in the face of the abandonment of Arab nationalism as a project of liberation, and the enfolding of much of the Arab world economy into neoliberalism. The international marches against Israel’s Operation Protective Edge this past summer were organized by many of the same people inspired by these events and their memories: more than 100,000 in London, and massive marches in Tunisia, Madrid, Dublin, New York, and Chicago. These global demonstrations are the coordinates of a new global anti-imperialist network. They resurrected for the first time since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq the spirit of an antiwar movement that has since dissipated. Thus, by relentlessly focusing on Israel and Washington’s role in the new war against ISIS and in the Middle East counterrevolutions, BDS can help to build a movement to combat neoliberal capital, Zionism, US expansion, and Islamophobia. Such a campaign will by necessity require an extension of BDS from campuses into workplaces, from workplaces to unions, from unions to community halls, from community halls into homes. We can build a still-stronger BDS movement beginning in the name of Palestinian freedom and ending in a permanent blow against American empire.