FreeU

Administrative Bloat: "The Coming Assault"

2012-01-19T14:42:00.000-06:00

Over at National Review's "Phi Beta Cons" there is this short post (excerpt only) discussing Benjamin Ginsberg's The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University:

"The raw numbers contained therein tell the story. “Forty years ago . . . the efforts of 446,830 professors were supported by 268,952 administrators and staffers. Over the past four decades, though, as the number of full-time professors increased slightly more than 50 percent . . . the number of administrators and administrative staffers employed by those schools increased by an astonishing 85 percent and 240 percent, respectively.”

"Although administration has burgeoned at both public and private institutions, the lion’s share of the growth has taken place in the latter."

Here is a critical review of the book (and its wider context) by NAS president Peter Wood (disclosure: I am an officer of the NAS).

HT: Glenn Ricketts

Thumbs Up to DE: Coverage of Crime Investigation Makes Front Page

2011-12-13T12:37:00.000-06:00

Image source: http://superchief.tv/columns/legal-mugging/

In a previous post, I complained that the campus does far too little to educate -- again and again -- students about avoiding crime in the area. In that post, I asked our daily newspaper, The Daily Egyptian, to report on these stories.

Well, today's issue of the Daily Egyptian has front-page coverage of recent robberies, where they have occurred, and how to prevent becoming a victim of crime on or near campus. The only suggestion I have for the DE is to possibly post the police blotters on their web site. Those of us who check know where crime is more likely to occur but it would help students too.

At any rate, this is a good sign even if it is about the uglier side of humanity.

SIU Strike: The Movie is Out

2011-12-09T21:43:00.001-06:00

A local activist sent the following along for your edification (and anticipation):

Crime? What Crime?

2011-12-06T10:21:00.001-06:00

Source: http://bhattlaw.com/ (see here for direct link to image)

Once again, the Southern Illinoisan reports a vicious assault on two people walking on or near campus. The silence from the university administration on "campus safety" is deafening.

Crime in the area is no secret to people outside Anthony Hall or Stone Center. In fact, Carbondale is the most crime-ridden college town in Illinois.

The last time there was such a beating near the SIU Recreation Center, the administration did unexpectedly act--by rushing to say how much (now) President Poshard loves diversity and welcomes African Americans to campus (the alleged assailants were black). The incident was surreal: the victim was lost in the race hysteria while the accused were assigned to a "dean of color" over at the law school (not normal procedure).

If the administration simply wishes the problem will go away, they are kidding themselves. (Trust me: I've been here long enough to hear all the excuses and spinning of crime statistics).

Let's hope that the Daily Egyptian can start running a police blotter for both the campus and Carbondale. Doing a series of articles on crime victims would help too. They have written about every other imaginable group on campus.

Until the administration and Carbondale get this problem under control, SIUC will deserve its reputation, if not as most crime-ridden, then as the "Capital of Denial."

Professor Publius: FA Contract a Real Loser (Chart)

2011-11-18T18:04:00.001-06:00

"Professor Publius" sent the following before-and-after chart comparing FA demands with what the FA got. Feel free to respond (or not). It's a semi-free country, after all.

Click on each chart to enlarge.

FSN: Should You Sign the Petition? An Exchange between Seltzer and Eichholz

2011-11-11T12:01:00.001-06:00

EDITOR'S NOTE:

At the request of Professor Deborah Seltzer-Kelly (and the permission of Mike Eichholz), I am posting this exchange between the two concerning the confusing state of the FSN petition process. The Illinois labor law is written in such a way that the petition states X (in plain English) but means Y (under Illinois labor law). No doubt labor unions and their political allies made the process so contorted to kabosh any effort at decertification. The petition states that the signer adopts the FSN's third entity as signer's bargaining representative (X) but in reality it is only a way to get a vote on the current status of the FA and any alternatives (Y). Think of it as a vote of confidence/no confidence in the FA.

Another factor: the lack of fair share means that many faculty who might sign the petition are apathetic. The union affects them indirectly but they do not pay $600 per year to the FA. They can go on with their lives and wish these periodic union-administration disputes would pass (as they always do).

Again, at Professor Seltzer-Kelly's request, I post the following exchange for interested readers. The FSN has 75% of the petitions they need and must get about 40 more signers before the window closes (i.e., before the FA and BOT sign the final contract). That is yet another hurdle for anyone unhappy with their union: decertification can only take place (generally speaking) when a contract has lapsed.

EXCHANGE: Seltzer-Kelley(Curriculum and Instruction) and Mike Eichholz (Zoology)

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at12:12 PM, Deborah Seltzer-Kelly wrote:

Mike, can you tell me why the FSN has not made an AAUPBargaining Chapter the other alternative for representation, instead of tryingto create some new entity out of the Faculty Senate? The fact that the FSNdoesn't offer an actual plan that would clearly work for this is, I think, avery substantial barrier for many of us in voting to decertify the FA. Frankly,too, I can see why this makes the FSN look like a stealth administrativesupport group to a lot of us who are very unhappy with both sides.

Thanks for any information you can give me -

Debbie Seltzer

On 11/9/2011 1:38 PM,Mike Eichholz wrote:

Debbie, We consideredthe AAUP as an alternative, but our perception is a big part of the problemwith the FA is the outside influence of the IEA/NEA; thus, we decided if wewere going to support a collective bargaining agent we preferred one that hadno outside affiliation. It's not clearto me why this is preventing people from signing the petition cards. I'm not certain how we can make it anyclearer that signing these cards only indicates an indivdual would like to voteon representation and when that occurs he/she can vote for continuation of thecurrent representation, new representation, or no representation at all when anelection occurs. Before such an electionwould take place, details of the new collective bargaining agent would bedeveloped (with the input of all interested faculty and provided to all facultyso they know what they are voting for. We can't take this step until after the petition is completed because itrequires negotiation with the administration, and we can't contact theadministration regarding this issue until after the petition is completed. If you have additional questions, please letme know. Feel free to forward this e-mailto anyone that may have similar questions.

Mike

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at2:25 PM, Deborah Seltzer-Kelly wrote:

Mike, with all respect, I hope you will understand whysaying something along the lines of "Trust us, it doesn't actually meanwhat it says, and it can all be worked out later" is not a satisfactoryresponse. In particular, your comment that "we decided if we were going tosupport a collective bargaining agent we preferred one that had no outsideaffiliation" confirms exactly what I believe many faculty fear: that thecore group in FSN already has a firm commitment to a particular course, andwill use the results to endorse that. The fact that you are promulgating a"push poll" in which faculty members who want to vote on alternativerepresentation are being asked to endorse a specific model for that alternativefeeds that sense. I am unwilling to put my name to something that, while itclaims to simply affirm my wish for the freedom for faculty to make another ofa wide range of choices, can actually be used to argue that I (and others)supported your Faculty Senate option.

I would very strongly suggest that if you want more facultyresponse--and to overcome the distrust among many of us raised by thedifference between the verbal and the written versions of positions we areseeing on the parts of both our administration and our FA--you focus uponmaking your language far more precise. If what you really intend is for facultyto be able to consider and select an alternative agent forrepresentation--possibilities for which might include an AAUP collectivebargaining chapter, a local educational union, a Faculty Senate constitutedbody, or ???--then say so.

Thank you for your permission to disseminate your answers; Iwill continue to do so with your next reply as well.

Debbie

On 11/9/2011 5:29 PM,Mike Eichholz wrote:

Debbie, As we havestated numerous times, the wording on the card is dictated by the IllinoisEducation Labor Relations Board. If youdon't believe me, call Eilene Brennan (312) 793 -3170 with the IELRB. I agree that if I didn't know better I wouldnot be comfortable signing that card. That is why we have tried to pass on as much information as possiblethrough e-mails. If you have asuggestion that doesn't include changing the wording on the card, I would loveto hear it. The law is written toprotect the unions in place, we can't do anything about it. The whole idea with this approach is theentire faculty will have input and be able to vote on how any new bargainingagent is formed. Page 71 of the belowwebsite provides the wording that is required for the petition.

http://www2.illinois.gov/elrb/Documents/RulesRegs1-24.pdf

If you have nay more questions, please let me know.

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at6:10 PM, Deborah Seltzer-Kelly wrote:

Mike, I have read each of your emails thoroughly, andbelieve that I have understood them. I will recapitulate my understanding soyou can correct me when and if I go wrong:

The FSN has chosen to follow Part 1110 - RepresentationProcedures in an attempt to replace the FA with another organization in asingle step, rather than following the decertification procedure and thencreating a new entity that would need to work toward recognition;

-This process requires that 30% of the represented facultysign a card authorizing a new group to be their exclusive representative forcollective bargaining;

-Such a group does not yet exist, but a body called the SIURepresentative Faculty Committee has been proposed by the FSN core group on theassumption that a cooperative agreement can be reached with the Faculty Senateto create it--so that is the name that is on the card;

-The decision to place the name of an organization that doesnot yet actually exist (and that may or may not be possible at all) was made bya core group within the FSN. This group decided not to pursue organizing as anAAUP collective bargaining chapter because they believe that outside influenceis a problem in the case of the current Faculty Association, and for someunstated reason they have not pursued the independent local option either;

-Those signing the card are asked to trust that, when and ifit gains the right to representation, the FSN actually intends to engage inopen deliberations as to the shape the organization will take--which mightinclude a Faculty Senate-associated body, an independent local union, an AAUPaffiliate, or something else.

Is all of this correct? If so, then I reiterate my previouspoint: the FSN has chosen a procedure that relies upon faculty members to trustthem to implement a particular process--despite the fact that it is not at allclear that the body the FSN plans to create will be possible at all, and thatthe core group within the FSN has already made a number of key decisions thathave dictated the direction this effort has taken. There are two alternativesthat you have not attempted to pursue: 1) go after decertification first--whichI agree leaves a troublesome gap in representation; or 2) hold meetings of moresubstance than the get-to-know-you events that you've had so far, and haveenough real discussion to do the consensus-building on the replacementorganization now, so you have a genuine option to offer on the cards. I believethat this last might yield a better result; it would provide the clarity andhonesty that many of us have found so lacking on both sides of the currentstruggle.

Debbie

On 11/9/2011 8:13 PM,Mike Eichholz wrote:

Close, but no this is not correct.

We had 2 options:

1) We could initiatea petition for straight decertification. If 30% of the faculty signed that petition, an election would have beenheld which would have required 50% of those voting to vote for decertificationfor it to pass. If it passed a year ofno representation would have been required before a new bargaining agent couldhave been elected in to place.

We chose option 2!

2) Initiate apetition of replacement (I don’t have the form with me and don’t remember theexact terminology used on the form). Again this approach requires signatures of 30% of the faculty, but after30% of the signatures are received a vote by all faculty is stillrequired. The cost to using thisapproach is you have to provide a name for the replacement bargaining agentalthough you don’t have to provide any detail as to the form of thatagent. The benefit of this approach isthat it doesn’t require the 1 year period of no representation, but moreimportantly, if you reach a 30% threshold for a vote, it is a 3 way vote (IELRBrequirements, check with Eilene Brennan of the IELRB if you don’t believe me)between the FA, the new representation, or no negotiating age. If none of the above have more than 50% ofthe vote, then there is a run-off election between the top 2. Thus, this approach allows both those peoplethat want a different bargaining agent and those that don’t want any bargainingagent to have a voice. It also stillallows those that would like to keep the FA to have a chance to do that aswell. I’ll reiterate, 30% of thesignatures only leads to a vote with 3 choices, and that vote won’t take placeuntil the alternative bargaining unit is actually been created. Any information you have heard thatcontradicts this is just supporters of the FA trying to provide misinformationto confuse things. Again, if you don’tbelieve me, talk to Eilene. There is noprocedure that allows for a replacement of the current FA without a vote of thefull faculty.

By the way, there is no question about the legality of thebargaining agent we have proposed; again, this is just members of the FA tryingto create a smoke screen to confuse the issue.

I’m happy to answer other questions.

Mike

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011at 1:06 PM, Deborah Seltzer-Kelly wrote:

Hi Mike -

I have now spoken with Eileen about a couple of myquestions, and would be interested in your responses to that discussion:

Why have you not explained in your emails that the FSN isnow working against a very short deadline? As soon as the new contract issigned, the window for submission of a representation petition is closed untilJanuary 1 of 2014 (per Section 1110.70 on Timeliness). In fact, too, Eileensays it is possible that the FA could make an argument even now that, sincethere is substantial agreement and documents are in preparation, the window isclosed--although there's no telling how that argument would turn out until andunless there was a hearing.

While the IL LaborBoard does not determine the viability of the proposed new organization--thatis controlled by federal law--the FA and/or the administration could certainlychallenge any entity that did not yet actually exist (with bylaws and so on)when they respond to the initial petition in that seven-day window (see Section1110.100 Processing of Petitions). While the IL Labor Board might not make anyfinding on that, a federal finding as to the legitimacy/viability of a unionbody would definitely supersede theirs. Interestingly, too, Eileen told methat, in her personal opinion, it would be very unusual for an organizationwithout at least some founding documents submit a representation petition.

I want to continue to make clear here that I am NOT pursuingthis because I would like to undercut the FSN efforts; I too believe theexisting FA has failed to serve anyone's interests, and that it has contributedto the deterioration of relations on campus. At the same time, I come to thisprocess with considerable background in union representation (from my years inthe Nevada Education Association), and I am quite concerned that any effort tochallenge the FA must be done carefully and correctly.

Thanks for the discussion -

Debbie

On 11/10/2011 1:31 PM,Mike Eichholz wrote:

Debbie,

We didn’t discuss the issue of deadlines because, as yourquestions have clearly demonstrated, the process is already extremely confusingand we didn’t want to add to the confusion. Without knowing i) when a contract might be signed, ii) the length ofthat contract (if it is < 2 years we don’t have to wait until the last yearof the contract) we could not provide an accurate estimate of when the deadlineis. I have spoken with 2 individualsfrom the US Office of Labor-Management Standards and both indicated theinformation we have provided would be adequate until an actual vote. There is no question the FA will file agrievance and challenge the petition. Weare attempting to ensure they have no basis for that grievance. I’m not certain what you think our ulteriormotives are, but I really don’t have time to continue these long e-mails. I would be happy to speak with you by phoneif you would like to give me a call (453-6951) to discuss the issue further.

Mike

Why I Voted "No" to a Strike

2011-11-03T12:48:00.003-05:00

As a member of the Faculty Association, I explained in late September why I voted "no" to a strike. I have never accepted the notion of "my union, right or wrong" any more than I would accept the false patriotism of "my country, right or wrong."

So, here I am teaching today as I always do. My hallway is empty but others show no sign of any change. Indeed, the number of faculty on strike varies enormously by department: virtually nothing has changed in some departments. In other departments, the majority of faculty are on strike.

I hope the FA comes to a settlement with the administration sooner rather than later. My guess is sooner but we shall see.

As a recap, here is Part II of the "Why I Will Vote 'No' to a Strike" blog I posted some time ago. Part I deals extensively with the union fears over tenure and financial exigency. I don't find those fears realistic or rising to the level of strike but many faculty do. Can that bridge be crossed between the FA and the Board? Again, let's hope so!

NOTE: The short url for the blog is http://goo.gl/XISaM

Remember the "Almost" Strike of 2003?

2011-11-01T20:12:00.003-05:00

From my emailarchive: I sent the following to a friend at another college who wanted somereading suggestions. Note that we have been there before (2003). Let us hopethat "almost"-strike repeats itself!

From: Jonathan J. Bean

To:

Sent: 1/11/2003 3:08 PM

Subject: Re: Readings

Dear P,

Michael French has a history of theU.S. Economy since 1945. Also, check citations from the leading econ historytextbooks. The one co-authored by Jonathan Hughes has a section on the rise ofthe tertiary [service] sector. Vedder and Galloway focus on this period intheir labor books and articles.

I'm away from my office but will scanmy shelves for further ideas.

Hereat SIUC we have a faculty strike date set for Feb. 3 if there is no agreementby then. Not a good situation.

Best,

Jon

****

-----Original Message-----

From: Jonathan J. Bean

Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 11:05AM

To:

Subject: Paean to Strikebreakers?

Dear P,

With a strike looming this coming Monday,I remembered the paean to strikebreakers you mentioned. . .

The campus newspaper is stronglyanti-union and has raised good questions . . .

Cheers,

Jon

FSN Petition Drive: Confidentiality of "Cards and Petitions"

2011-10-31T17:46:00.001-05:00

Love or hate the Faculty for Sensible Negotiations (FSN), their card drive has apparently begun in earnest. Below you will find the message from their Executive Committee. Meantime, I did some fact checking about the confidentiality of such cards.

The general Illinois Labor Relations Board states:

Q. What is a showing of interest?

A. A showing of interest is evidence 1) in the case of a representation petition or intervention petition, that an employee desires to represented by a particular labor organization or 2) in the case of a decertification petition, that an employee no longer wishes to be represented by the labor organization which is the current exclusive bargaining representative. Such evidence may consist of authorization cards or petitions that are signed, dated and clearly state the employee’s intent. The cards and petitions are valid for 12 months following the date of the employee signatures. The Board maintains the confidentiality of the cards and petitions submitted to support the showing of interest. (Section 1210.80 of the Rules). [BOLD ADDED FOR EMPHASIS]

SOURCE: http://www.state.il.us/ilrb/subsections/frequent/index.asp

The Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board is silent on the issue but does say the certification by one or more unions must be by "secret" ballot and have the "no union" choice (two rival unions may also vie to represent faculty).

If the FA has contrary evidence, I'm sure they will let this blogger know.

FSN needs 30% of faculty signed to have a new election as described below. Seems like a high hurdle but who knows? In general, while I am a FA member, I do believe all so-called "democratic organizations" ought to face a vote of confidence every set number of years. The law doesn't mandate such votes but there is nothing to stop those -- like the FSN -- for seeing whether the faculty of 2011 agree with the faculty of 1996 (the ones who originally got representation rights via union election).

Without further ado, here is the FSN message:

"Faculty,

Attached to this email is asignature card associated with the Faculty for Sensible Negotiations’ (FSN) effortto initiate an Illinois Education Labor Relations Board (IELRB) ballot todetermine whether tenured and tenure (T/TT) track faculty at SIUC wish tocontinue to be represented by the Faculty Association (FA) as our exclusivecollective bargaining agent. Anidentical signature card also will be placed in your campus mailbox. Once signatures have been collected from 30%or more of T/TT faculty, the cards will be forwarded to the IELRB to bringforth a formal a vote on replacement of the Faculty Association with the SIURepresentative Faculty Committee (seeattached white paper for a conceptual outline), retention of the FacultyAssociation, or decertification of the FA with no replacement. We would prefer to have cards returned by Friday, 4 November but will gladlyaccept cards after that date.

The university administrationcannot support this action in any way. Do not use university resources (i.e., ink and paper) to print thesecards. Once signed, return your card toany individual listed on the signature card by placing it in their campusmailbox or hand delivery to the listed office address. Please contact a listed FSN representative ifyou are concerned about retribution for supporting this process or desire analternative method of returning the card. Signed cards will be delivered to theIELRB for validation. The FSN will notpublicly disclose the identities of those who sign and return the cards.

Your signature on these cards onlyindicates your interest in providing T/TT faculty an opportunity to vote onattaining alternative representation. Signingthis card does not preclude you from voting to retain the FA or for norepresentation by a collective bargaining agent in the subsequent IELRB ballotprovided signature of at least 30% of T/TT faculty sign and return the attachedcard.

Sincerely,

Faculty for Sensible Negotiations

ExecutiveCommittee: John Groninger (groninge@siu.edu), Karl Williard (williard@siu.edu), Jason Greene (jgreene@business.siu.edu), Kim Asner-Self (kasner@siu.edu), Justin Schoof (jschoof@siu.edu), Ed Benyas (benyas@siu.edu), Sara Baer (sgbaer@siu.edu), Matt Mccarroll (mmccarroll@chem.siu.edu), Bruce Devantier (bdevanti@siu.edu),Maryon King (mfking@business.siu.edu), John Voges (jvoges@aviation.siu.edu), MikeEichholz (mikeeichholz@gmail.com)

Emeritus Faculty Organization to Fight for Freedom

2011-10-18T20:43:00.000-05:00

Sent from the witty microbiologist David Clarke, professor emeritus. Click and then hit F11 to enlarge.

Sue Your Law School! They Gave You the Degree

2011-10-11T14:58:00.000-05:00

This story ought to be a wake up call for Illinois law schools, among others. Suing based on "deceptive marketing" and the rest is not just for University of Phoenix any longer.

Just hope your university doesn't get this guy as judge. . .

Pension Cutters: They are Back!

2011-10-06T23:00:00.000-05:00

Ever get the feeling that generational warfare is upon us? Too bad the young people protesting "Wall Street" are not taking time to protest the "screwing" of their generation (heck, mine too) by decades of pay-go redistribution.

But, hey, the Baby Boomers gave us many great dead rock stars who never collected Social Security or pensions: Thank you, Jimi, Janis, et al.

FYI: Decertification and Local Only Teacher Unions

2011-10-06T22:30:00.002-05:00

There is now a move on campus to decertify the FA. See the message issued by "Faculty for Sensible Negotiations" (after the critical commentary by FA leader Dave Johnson)

In his provocative book Teacher Unions, former union organizer Myron Lieberman argued that the NEA/AFT organizations had grown out of touch with members and required expensive bundled membership (national/state/local). See his section on "Local Only Teacher Unions" (LOTUs) near the end of his book.

To get information up quickly, here are some links to places that have had LOTUs, sometimes after a decertification. I am not (presently) taking sides on the issue but post the following as FYI:

Here is an article advocating more options for teachers (skip to pp. 28 onward). It notes that most LOTUs have been in Ohio and Indiana but see below for more. . . .

Interesting labor journal "special issue" on what happens during faculty strike:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u81u27872237628w/

especially http://www.springerlink.com/content/gn43127353674263/ -- a strike that "nearly killed the university" and resulted in the former union militant working to decertify the union.

Of course, most college faculty have no unions (poor, pitiful souls!) and the teacher unions are concentrated in the K-12 sector. See below:

Washington State:

http://lyndenprofessionaleducators.org/Local_Association.html

http://www.myfreedomfoundation.com/index.php/liberty-live/view/st._john_school_district_teachers_oust_the_wea

Southern Illinois: teacher union decertifies and creates LOTU:

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2007/03/01/illinois-teachers-seek-independence-state-union-meet-resistance

http://www.nwpe.org/PDF/Illinois_Decertification_AAE_News_Release.pdf

Detroit and Colorado:

http://blog.ednewscolorado.org/2009/04/16/local-unions-an-option-for-teachers

Kansas break away from NEA:

http://www.ediswatching.org/2009/09/teachers-in-another-school-district-decide-to-break-away-from-the-nea/

Don't forget PATCO! Some may see this as the "last stand of unionism" but sometimes you lose. Ask PATCO.

Happy Songs for the Strike Vote Blues

2011-09-27T10:10:00.001-05:00

As children, we learn to count the age of a tree by the number of lines marking the passage of time. Adults measure age by the wrinkles on their face. And nothing causes wrinkles more than worry (unscientific observation). With furrowed brows, Saluki faculty have yet to bring out in song, either by singing the blues, shouting union songs or joining a chorus of "Up With People."

Ecclesiastes states that "there is a time" for everything, including worry. But this blog is about being happy in the face of worry. So put on some new shoes, drink a margarita, and choose your favorite of the following "Happy Songs." Nominations welcome and I'll try to add them! For a list of ideas, see Spin's list of the top ten "happy songs."

Here are three with the #1 pick recommended by Professor Jonathan Wiesen (and also one of my favorite happy songs). Good timing, Jonathan, now that R.E.M. just broke up! But, hey, we'll save "breaking up" songs for another day . . .

Enjoy and recommend!

#3: "New Shoes" (Paolo Nutini)

#2: "Don't Worry Be Happy" (Bobby McFerrin)

#1: "Shiny Happy People" (R.E.M.) -- redirects to the Youtube video in high quality.

Why I Will Vote "No" to a Strike (Part II)

2011-09-23T16:52:00.000-05:00

In a previous post, I explained why I think the FA's two major strike issues--tenure and distance education--are based on unsubstantiated fear and certainly no reason to go on strike. This post discusses other reasons to vote "no" next Wednesday. Feel free to add or subtract from the list (by arguing back!). This is a long post but I have included two short Hollywood movie clips to keep you interested. Suggestions for other Hollywood metaphors appreciated!

What is a strike? The unions threatening to strike state:

While there is no legal definition of a strike in the Labor Act, our operative description is, “a concerted refusal to perform day-to-day work duties to disrupt the normal operation of an employer.”

For faculty, disruption of "normal operations" means we do not teach our students, we do not advise our graduate students, and we do not conduct research with the tools provided by our employer.

Some people argue that unions exist to strike. In fact, many public employee unions are prohibited from striking. This would include police, fire fighters, and all federal employees. Moreover, unions perform functions that have nothing to do with strikes: for example, they provide grievance support, legal insurance, and collective bargaining without a work stoppage.

*Strikers are free riders: Typically, the union argument is that non-union members are free riders who benefit from union-secured gains. During a strike, those who continue to work are carrying the load of those who are not working. They help to keep the "normal operations" going as best they can while their striking colleagues walk away. If the strike results in minimal benefits but includes a "back-to-work" clause to end a weak strike, then those strikers get back pay for not working.

*Strikers lose pay, administrators still get paid: The FA has demonized administrators and wants to "hit back" with a strike to get their attention. NEWS FLASH! The administrators still get paid, the only people who lose are the students (more on that later) and the strikers, unless there is bargaining "success."

*What does the FA consider "success"? Inserting tenure and no-layoff language that is more to their liking? I've already argued that any change in wording is only to address a fear that is unsubstantiated particularly given the wave of retirements this year. If that is "success," it is status quo success, IMHO (see previous post). The FA has asked for 1.25 months salary for teaching a distance ed course. A month's salary (the norm for summer) is not enough. This was never an issue with summer teaching but now that we have online courses, it is "unfair" if we earn less than 1.25 months/salary per course. If administration agrees, it would mean teachers have to offer courses with very high enrollment to pay for these gilded teaching slots. But FA doesn't like thinking in terms of cost recovery either so around and around we go in this Alice in Wonderland world.

*"Show me the money!" In the movie Jerry Maguire (1996) a professional athlete is trying to get his agent's attention as to what really matters to him. The athlete is concerned with the bottom line, but the FA (our Jerry Maguire) says that this strike is "not about the money." If the FA played Tom Cruise's part and said "it's not about the money," the movie would have ended right here:

The FA insists there is a surplus here at SIUC. When have they ever admitted that a) there was a deficit or b) it might be prudent to have a "rainy day fund"? But this year there will be mass retirements and they could bargain for slightly higher pay in return for giving up some faculty lines. But they won't do that because they want to maintain "quality education" even though we all hope to muddle through without layoffs. The only way is through attrition until we reach a time when we can afford to "preserve faculty lines."

*"Preserving faculty lines" = higher risk of layoffs: Face it, if there are fewer of us here to do the "normal operations" of our employer, we have greater job security.

*"I'm not going to actually strike, but I want to strengthen the union position by voting 'yes'": I've heard this many times on campus. Keep in mind: if you vote "yes" you probably told people you were voting "yes" and they would expect you to act accordingly if there is a strike. If you cross the picket line, you probably have earned the term "scab" (an ugly term from the union-label factory). You will be seen that way. On the other hand, if you are on record voting "no," then hold your head high and go to work. You have voted your conscience and acted on it.

*Back to work pay: The union assures us that strikes "usually" last only two weeks. Maybe yes, maybe no. Frankly, as I posted elsewhere on this blog, there have not been many strikes in higher ed since the Meltdown of 2008. Will you get paid for the time you were off? Maybe yes, maybe no. People are already calculating how long they could go on strike. You may borrow money from the IEA but it must be paid back. I have my doubts as to how generous the IEA would be since they only get 1/3 of faculty members to contribute here at SIUC. The IEA prefers to have dues from 100% of members; that is why the FA/IEA is demanding "fair share" fees for those who refuse to join the union.

*Fair share isn't fair--know your rights: I'm confident the FA will not get fair share from the administration. As a FA member, I do not want to coerce fellow faculty into paying against their will. Moreover, I want the right to "vote with my feet" by leaving the union if I think it is irresponsible. If "fair share" comes about, look up your rights to rebates of the fees at this web site.

*Striking will hurt some departments more than others: Want to really damage your college or department's position on campus? Shut down operations and leave your students wondering what to do. Trust me: a strike will show fault lines of union support/nonsupport. I suspect my college (liberal arts) will be hit hard by a strike. Not good. It would take years, if ever, to recover.

*A strike hurts students: The FA barely mentions students. The strike is aimed at the administration but will hit current students and may dissuade future students from coming here. The FA retort is that "this is in the best long-term interests of students." How high-minded of the FA to break a few eggs (current students) to make an omelet of better education in the future!

*The federal government may freeze financial aid: This is not hypothetical. Last month, a NEA faculty union went on strike at Youngstown State University (16,000 students). The U.S. Department of Education took swift action and ordered the administration to freeze federal financial aid to students. That forced the union to call off the strike. If students lose financial aid, and the union continues to strike, we will lose semester when the administration is forced to cease operations. That is not disruption, it is destruction.

Even if financial aid remains for this semester at SIUC, how will students manage a delayed semester when they have to work back home? Yeah, this is going to be REAL popular with students and parents.

*Show me a winner! There were some successful strikes that I listed previously but they were all pre-2008. Since 2008, I have identified three faculty strikes: Central Michigan (sent to binding arbitration per Michigan Law), Long Island University (strike ended with 6% of raises over five years, a net loss after inflation), and Youngstown State, which does not look hopeful. Again, if there are more, show me the winners. Who wins in a strike? Read this cautionary tale of a strike that "nearly killed the university"--written by a former militant unionist who crossed the picket in a 1990 strike and then successfully decertified the union.

*Let us be a little grateful: for what we have as faculty. Secure jobs (despite FA rhetoric) and really good health insurance. We pay only 10% of the $1905 spent on Health Alliance for a household of three or more (including dental). As a person with intractable medical issues (and braces for one child this fall!), I am not reassured by the blithe FA line "don't worry, you can sign up for COBRA insurance later if something happens."

*Remember Thelma & Louise? I'll end with the final 1.5 minutes of that classic movie. It's a great ending in a movie theater but not in real life. Don't let your vote be for pushing the medal to "accelerate" off the cliff. . . .

OPEN FORUM: What Do Students Think of a Strike?

2011-09-22T18:26:00.002-05:00

At the Deo Volente web site, an anonymous student posted the following:

"I just want to thank everyone involved in this whole mess, that after 1 month here as a transfer student I will be transferring to another school after this semester....get it sorted out!"

This is an open space for students to react to a possible strike by faculty and staff. Feel free to be anonymous but no ad hominem attacks on people.

Any response is fine but I'd also like to know how a strike might alter your plans, if at all. Would you color your view of SIUC as an institution of higher education, either positively or negatively?

FYI: "Anonymous" is boring so feel free to follow our Founding Fathers by using pen names (Cato, Brutus, Claudius, or something modern like "50 Cent" LOL).

Fire away!

Why I am Voting "No" to a Strike (Part I)

2011-09-21T21:13:00.000-05:00

[NOTE: This two-part message offers a viewpoint differing from that of my colleague Professor Zaretsky. Please read her post, Deo Volente discussions, and my own reflections below. We FA members have a week to decide and even change our minds, as I have done before deciding that NOW is not the time]

After paying close attention to what the Faculty Association (FA) has been saying, as well as the fine details of administration statements and terms, I have decided to vote "no" on a strike at this time.

This does not come easily because I am unhappy with the current proposed raises and believe the substantial retirements this year mean more work at the same pay. I would hope that the administration could offer those of us left behind a small slice of the pie (hundreds of workers will retire this year. Do the math).

Unfortunately, the FA leaders insist that this is not about modest pay raises or short-term job security. Instead, they have whipped themselves up over perceived "attacks on tenure" and "forced teaching of online courses."

The FA's Distance Ed claims are false, even by the administration's imposed terms (see Addendum D). I might add that the transition to online education has been rocky and there is no way the administration is in a position to force people online. More important: for years, faculty screamed for unit control and credit for courses taught online. Distance Education credit hours and responsibility are now at the department and college level. We asked, we got, now we live with the rocky transition from central to unit control.

To write contract language "no professor shall be required to teach online" goes against the decentralization of programs that are being put in place after departments and colleges decided to create them. Some colleges now offer certificates and degree programs with an online component. If Mass Communications or Education create programs with an online component, then shouldn't they be allowed to hire people who teach an online course in their area of expertise?

Even the FA knows this is a straw man: at last Friday's Q & A, Professor Auxier conceded that there would be more than enough volunteers and it is not going to be an issue in the short term. But, then, the FA flies off into the stratosphere of "power politics." "They" want to make "us" do as they please and it is theoretically possible that some time down the road this may be an issue. Perhaps, but not in the next 3-4 years! Why are they leading a strike movement with this weak non-issue?

The Chancellor's email today puts forth the administration position that financial exigency (or program elimination) is required to terminate faculty. There is added job security because of retirements and the hiring freeze. Plus those with tenure are listed (even under imposed terms) as the last to be laid off.

"The full or partial layoff of Faculty members in the level of organization as determined by the Board to which the layoff applies shall be in the order listed below:
a. Full-time untenured tenure-track Faculty;
b. Tenured Faculty."

Those same "imposed terms" scratch out the following no-layoff clause:

~~"No Faculty member shall be laid off for financial exigency during the 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010 fiscal years."~~

Given the above factors, how bad would things have to get before they laid off tenured people? When our 2006-2010 contract expired, President Randy Hughes assured me that it would be very unlikely layoffs would ever reach tenured faculty unless things were really bad (as in "financial exigency" bad). But now the union leadership is leading us into a strike based on a quixotic battle with something that a) hasn't happened and b) is likely never to occur!

The 2006-2010 clause granted no-layoff security even with a financial exigency--a higher bar than the Board Policy which calls for financial exigency before terminating faculty. Still, declaring "exigency" means the Board believes the very existence of the institution is threatened and that would send SIUC's borrowing costs sky-high (not to mention the bad press).

Can I live with financial exigency as the "bar" needed to lay off faculty? You bet. Demanding more is really setting tenure-track faculty in a position so secure that we only share that privileged position with one other group: U.S. Supreme Court justices!

The FA insists that "financial exigency" is not in a new union contract. Even if true, so what? The FA view is that the whole universe exists within the union contract:

no contract clause = no tenure rights. . .

Step back from the ledge and imagine the following: you are teaching at a college or university of your choice. You are a tenured professor. Are you freaking out about your "insecure tenure" because your college has no union? Of course not.

Again, since the FA is fond of hypotheticals, imagine a contract with no "financial exigency" clause. The Board policy remains (with financial exigency required for terminations). This could be the basis of lawsuits for wrongful termination, as was the case back in the 1970s. Does any one believe the administration wants to go through that again? I have criticized many administration policies over the years but I am not that paranoid.*

*If the Board eliminated its "financial exigency" policy (as the FA says it might), then I will seriously consider a strike. But we haven't crossed that bridge, have we?

"We strike for tenure" is a loser argument in this economic climate. Lifetime job security is never popular even in good times. Privately, FA members will say tenure = lifetime job security (and, hey, I'm all for that!) but when outsiders accuse FA leaders of desiring lifetime jobs, they retort "that's not true!" But, really, it is true if the FA insists on a no-layoff clause in each and every contract.

The informative, vigorous discussions at another web site make one thing clear: those strongly in favor of a strike believe this is not about money or short-term (as opposed to life-long) job security. Perhaps they wish to seize some "moral high ground." Yet who is not in a union for better pay? That's why I joined and the last contract was good for me. I grow fearful when my union puts bread-and-butter issues below some "larger cause" (particularly one that seems purely hypothetical).

The FA leadership also favors a strike to make the administration "bargain in good faith." But given the malevolence they have ascribed to the administration (with particular demonization of Cheng) one would think the "Evil Empire" (as one person characterized the administration) would "Strike Back" during a strike (apologies to the creators of Star Wars for the reference). The students would be collateral damage (more on that in Part II).

Replacement Workers during a SIUC Faculty Strike

2011-09-20T23:03:00.001-05:00

The Daily Egyptian reported the following:

“Chancellor Rita Cheng said if the unions were to go onstrike, the university would ensure minimal impact on students. She saidsubstitute teachers would be called in and administrators would teach classes.”

And at what point may the university hire faculty to replacethose who are on strike? “Substitute teachers” sure sounds like “replacementworkers” and they won’t be hard to find. That will only make the unionpicketing meaner.

Seeking Success: Any Faculty Strike Victories of Late?

2011-09-20T20:43:00.002-05:00

The Long Island University faculty cancelled their strike after six days, accepting 6.5% in raises over 5 years. The Youngstown State University faculty called a strike, then called it off. Doesn't look hopeful there either.

Central Michigan Faculty voted to strike but a judge signed an injunction sending them back to work. They are waiting for a fact-finding report. That report won't come out until late October or early November.

A previous post of mine listed successful strikes but they were all in the pre-2008 years. Still looking for a clear union victory. Does anyone have something for our victory column?

NEWS FLASH: Strike Fund Loan Details!!

2011-09-20T10:54:00.001-05:00

What are thetimelines, procedures, and standards related to the IEA-NEA interest-freestrike loan program?

1) You must be an enrolled IEA-NEA member atthe time of the loan request and remain a member until the loan is repaid[usually a period of six month repayment.]

2) The local must be on strike at least ten(10) work days and have the likelihood of a missed check (or a check with reduced pay) before theinterest-free loan program can be instituted. The paperwork for the loan is usuallyimplemented in such a way that the actual check should be available at the endof a ten (10) workday period if needed.

3) A loan may not be for more than the “netpay”, i.e., your gross pay minus payroll taxes. So for faculty and gradassistants with monthly paychecks the rule of thumb is ½ of the monthly net payand for civil service employees it is the bi-weekly net amount.

4) Individuals must sign the IEA-NEA loanagreement document as well as any loan documents that may be required by thelending institution. A copy of your latest pay stub is needed to substantiatethe amount of the loan.

5) More information will be provided by yourlocal Strike Loan Committee if and when a strike action takes place.

6) Only borrow what you absolutely need.

COBRA Health Insurance Costs: Here are the Numbers

2011-09-17T17:21:00.003-05:00

If the Faculty Association goes on strike, the leadership noted that strikers are covered by COBRA. If the administration is really as malevolent as the FA makes it out to be, then assume a scenario where strikers are left paying the full cost of their health insurance.

How much would that be for a family of four? (For other household configurations, consult this chart. I have a family of four (three dependents) under Health Alliance Illinois. If I went on strike, the cost would be $1,803 + $102 for dental = $1,905. The COBRA rates are roughly the same for other plans.

For more information on COBRA, see

http://www.understandcobra.com/60-day-rule-in-electing-a-cobra.html

http://www.insure.com/articles/healthinsurance/cobra.html

As you can see from the second link, "it's complicated." But learn your rights.

Strike Fund? Questions About IEA Loans

2011-09-16T18:23:00.000-05:00

In its strike FAQ, the FA/IEA mentions zero interest loans to cover insurance costs. Those costs may be nothing, since the state already paid SIUC for our coverage OR they may run up to the full unsubsidized insurance cost. It's all up in the air.

The question of a lending fund for strikes is key: what will IEA loans cover? Insurance, lost pay? And for how long? Is there a cap? Finally, most importantly, the IEA site mentions the generosity of other NEA affiliates in contributing to such zero interest loan funds. That suggests it is left up to the "generosity" of other locals? Or does the IEA has a central revolving fund? I asked the IEA organizer at the FA meeting yesterday and he promised to get back to me. Let's hope so because how many people have the savings to go on strike and pay the family's bills??

UPDATED Youngstown Univ. Strike: Situation to Monitor as SIU Faculty Consider Strike

2011-09-16T18:21:00.001-05:00

My last post consisted of links to strikes by faculty at Illinois colleges. All those strikes occurred before the Crash of 2008. I found one strike called by Youngstown State Univ. faculty (NEA affiliate) but then called off. For details, follow news stories on that story since it is running in real time as SIUC heads toward a strike vote:

*8/20: With a letter of intent to strike sent by the union, the U.S. Department of Education urged the university to withhold financial aid from students. Students rallied against being "held hostage" by the administration.

8/25: http://www.vindy.com/news/2011/aug/25/ysu-responds-to-faculty-strike-vote/

8/26: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/08/youngstown_state_university_fa.html

9/14: Talks resume: http://goo.gl/KDqwg

9/16: Followup action from faculty activists: http://goo.gl/vNhLR

NOTE: While YSU saw enrollment increase since 2000, it dropped in past few years: http://goo.gl/Wurr1

I'll be contacting union officials there to find out what was involved. There was mention in one comment that a YSU professor said he couldn't afford $500 COBRA payment and was going to forgo health insurance.

If you know anyone at YSU, contact them for info.

What Happens When Faculty Strike? The Case of Northeastern Illinois (2004)

2011-09-15T21:11:00.000-05:00

A timeline summary of events available at this link.

Other Illinois faculty strikes in the past ten years (see links in sidebar):

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-05-17/news/0305180017_1_professor-faculty-ranking-system

Mayor Emanuel versus Chicago Teacher Union

2011-09-14T23:01:00.000-05:00

Capitolfax.com has yet another story on how ham-handed the AFT teacher union is in Chicago. The union hates Emanuel and the hatred is mutual (expletives from the mayor deleted). Last year, Emanuel got the state to pass a law that raised the necessary strike vote to 75% in Cook County. And now he has the teacher union boxed in on school reform.

This is why people, even in Democratic cities, turn on teacher unions. Personally, I believe SIUC, like most such employers, gets the unions it deserves but I sure wish it weren't one of the duopoly (NEA/AFT). Currently, I'm like John McCain's mother: she said to her party's members who thought McCain stunk that they ought to "hold their noses" and stick with the campaign.

Right now I'm holding my nose and hoping for the best. But I sure wish my local union were affiliated with a national that didn't stink.

Postscript: Imagine Governor Emanuel! His approval ratings are very high in Chicago and his well-known anti-union stance doesn't seem to bother the same Democratic characters who got so riled up by Governor Scott Walker. Surprise, surprise.

Books That Make Us Human: My Top Ten List

2011-09-13T19:58:00.000-05:00

Professor Brad Birzer, a man of unbounded energy, asked several of us to contribute a "top ten" list of books that make us human. Quite a challenge: limited to ten books, what would you (dear reader) choose and why?

See my list at The Imaginative Conservative web site. It starts with a book by this man:

Enrollment Numbers: SIUE, U of I Hit Record Highs, SIUC Sings the Blues

2011-09-08T21:28:00.000-05:00

What else is new? This fall semester, SIU's Edwardsville campus saw more new students, more applications and a record number of all students on campus. Ditto University of Illinois. No need to parse out the spots of strength in an otherwise cloudy forecast. "Nothing but blue skies up ahead."

SIU-E is less expensive than SIU-C, morale seems higher (can't be lower than Carbondale!), and the infrastructure is nice on the eyes (compare Faner Hall, Housing Towers at SIUC). I wonder if professors at SIU-E watch their drip buckets to capture the leaking pipes in the offices? Probably not.

New Firing Line: Sexual Harassment as Excuse to Fire Faculty

2011-09-07T17:53:00.002-05:00

From East Georgia College: the latest in a string of cases involving abuse of the "sexual harassment" codes. These codes can be used to expel students later found to be innocent (see my previous blog entry) or terminate faculty for speaking out against "sexual harassment" codes that lack due process.

All too often, the accused is guilty-until-proven-innocent. Even then, students and faculty can still be thrown off campus because the administration doesn't feel they will make for a "comfortable environment." Oh, no, we can't have tenure-track faculty criticizing our administrative czars, especially if they wrap the Star Chamber with sweet sounding rhetoric about an "institutional commitment to a harassment-free campus." Offering a different viewpoint thus constitutes harassment itself!

Thank God for the lawyers at FIRE and ACLU local chapters. This is also an issue being fought by the Faculty Association. It is a battle against university lawyers who err on the side of being overprotective of those who might be harassed. This buys them, in their way of thinking, some legal insurance against lawsuits that claim they didn't "do enough." FIRE, ACLU, FA help level the legal battlefield.

Strikes and Alternatives: What About Binding Arbitration?

2011-09-01T18:24:00.006-05:00

Since my union is emailing me "strike watches," I went in search of information on what makes for a successful strike, particularly in a competitive market (that would include higher education, where students can simply leave).

I didn't find much in my end-of-day search but the links below are a start on strikes and binding arbitration as a permissible alternative in Illinois:

How to Go on Strike

How to End a Strike

Several colleagues have mentioned binding arbitration as a desirable end. The Illinois Association of School Boards (IASB) has supported binding arbitration as an alternative to strikes while backing a law that would prohibit strikes by public employees.

Illinois Education Association has a FAQ on rights that mentions binding arbitration although the context is not clear: "All collective bargaining agreements are required to include a grievance procedure ending in binding arbitration and provision prohibiting strikes during the duration of the agreement."

Another source states that binding arbitration is "permitted" in Illinois:

ILLINOIS: Educational employees at all levels permitted to bargain under the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act. However, several types of employees, including supervisors, managers, confidential employees, short-term employees, and students, are excluded from bargaining by statute. Impasse procedures include mediation and fact-finding. Arbitration is permitted. Strikes are permitted after several conditions set forth in the statute are met.

Read the Illinois law here and here. Michigan's law seems much stronger and mandatory, according to this source. See also this link.

No talk of strike funds (probably none) or the option of binding arbitration. This happened when faculty struck at Central Michigan University. A judge ordered the instructors back to work but also imposed binding arbitration.

If there is any one out there who knows more about these issues, feel free to comment or, better yet, post a blog (with your name or pseudonym if you prefer!). I'm sure inquiring minds on campus would love to know more about the ins and outs of strikes, the alternatives, possible outcomes, etc.

I'd sure love to know more. Perhaps someone at the National Labor College knows? I'll try to contact them later.

REMINDER: Do Not Use .EDU Email for Anything Political

2011-08-31T08:47:00.004-05:00

I've blogged about this before but never, ever use your .edu email address to say anything blatantly partisan. If you work for the state, you lose some (much?) of your freedom to express yourself. Remember those Ethics Exams we take each year with their ridiculous scenarios of terminating employees for relatively innocuous infractions?

Read this article from Capitolfax.com This fellow used his state email to make a political statement and got a reprimand. It could have been worse.

Just get yourself a Gmail account or private blog and then rant 'n rave to your heart's delight.

Further reading:

Facebook and U: The Dangers of University Email

Big Brother and U, Part II: Is Your University Reading Your Email?

Big Brother and U, Part II: Is Your University Reading Your Email?

Coming Student Loan Crisis: Crony Capitalism + Egalitarian Liberalism

2011-08-25T21:48:00.003-05:00

Take the notion that every child deserves to attend college (egalitarian liberalism) and add crony capitalism (banks with the power to squeeze you despite bankruptcy (i.e., kind of like the IRS!). The result is the warning of several commentators recently of a coming student loan crisis. In today's Wall Street Journal, Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus are quoted from an Atlantic.com story they wrote:

As this semester begins, college loans are nearing the $1 trillion mark, more than what all households owe on their credit cards. Fully two-thirds of our undergraduates have gone into debt, many from middle class families, who in the past paid for much of college from savings. . . .

If you want to get a name as an economic seer, try this one. The next subprime crisis will come from defaults on student debts, starting with for-profit colleges and rising to the Ivy League. . . .

Still, there's a difference. With mortgage defaults, banks seize and resell the home. But if a degree can't be sold, that doesn't deter the banks. They essentially wrote the student loan law, in which the fine-print says they aren't "dischargable." So even if you file for bankruptcy, the payments continue due.

Hence these stern words from Barmak Nassirian of the American Association of College Registrars and Admissions Officers. "You will be hounded for life," he warns. "They will garnish your wages. They will intercept your tax refunds. You become ineligible for federal employment." He adds that any professional license can be revoked and Social Security checks docked when you retire.

Read the full article because it is worth the read.

J'accuse! Feds "Discourage" Due Process

2011-08-20T22:53:00.001-05:00

Cross-examine witnesses and accuser? That is so 20th century. The Office of Civil Rights (Department of Education) "discourages" it. Colleges have already thrown out old-fashioned notions of civil liberties, as we well know at SIUC, so they are all too happy to presume guilt. The Wall Street Journal has a followup on this topic, which I blogged about yesterday.

(Look for any advice to those accused in our sexual harassment code and compare it to the apparatus offered up to accusers. Or just click on the "sexual harassment" label for this site).

Feds Gut Due Process in "Sexual Harassment" Cases

2011-08-19T14:41:00.001-05:00

The Office of Civil Rights for the Department of Education has retreated from its firm stance in favor of due process and put forth a new standard for enforcing campus sexual harassment codes based on "the preponderance of evidence" (rather than "clear and convincing" evidence). AAUP and FIRE are concerned that this lower bar deprives faculty, staff and students accused of the due process they need and deserve.

Keep in mind that "sexual harassment" codes extend to a wide range of behavior that is not sexual: namely, creating a "hostile environment." The "hostile environment" category embraces speech and makes this an academic freedom concern, according to both AAUP and FIRE.

How low does this bar go? Pretty darn low. Consider a case from North Dakota where a male student (Caleb Warner) was suspended for three years after a female student accused him of rape. The police later found evidence that this woman had made a false accusation (they never happen, right?) and "lodged criminal charges [against her] . . . for filing a false police report."

So the male student was let back on campus, right? No. Based on the "preponderance of evidence" letter just issued by OCR, North Dakota State still refused to re-consider the case. In the administration's opinion, there was no "substantial new information" (bold for emphasis) and "Warner's three-year suspension 'was not a legal process but an educational one.'"

It's a bad turn of events because in 2003 the same Office of Civil Rights was concerned with the "convict first and fast" attitude of harassment officers in areas of speech. In 2003, the Office of Civil Rights issued a statement clarifying that enforcement did not require campuses to abandon the First Amendment. Today's OCR seems to think its lower standard is just fine, thank you. It will apply not only in cases of alleged rape but also "expressive activities" (speech).

This gutting of due process will leave administrations with the power to blur the difference between rape (a crime that must be proved, except on campuses) and innocent speech, however controversial. In either case, due process is there to prevent Star Chambers from walling themselves off from the rest of the world and declaring their authority Supreme on campus. So now places like North Dakota will stonewall and say: we don't deal with legal processes, only educational ones.

AAUP and FIRE have fought so many of these cases that they have lost their shock value. Indifference breeds the arrogance of power. Fortunately, faculty/staff/students can organize or speak out. In some cases, they can bring in the AAUP and FIREs of the world and "sue the bastards." Perhaps that is the only thing that Power understands.

For more, read this FIRE FAQ on the new OCR mandates

HT: Adam Kissel

23% of High School Graduates Ready for College (Illinois)

2011-08-17T22:40:00.004-05:00

From Capitolfax.com (August 17th):

"More than three-quarters of Illinois high school graduates aren’t completely ready for college, based on their ACT scores, state results of the college-admission test released Wednesday show.
Only 23 percent of Illinois’ 2011 high school graduating class — public and private — met college readiness standards in all four ACT subjects tested: English, reading, math and science.

The biggest drag on preparedness, data showed, was college-readiness in science. There, only 28 percent of the 2011 Illinois graduating class scored high enough to predict they will probably land a C or better in the typical college freshmen science course in biology, the ACT report indicated.

Among the state’s African-American students, only 6 percent met that same college-ready science bar."

"But…

And although Illinois is one of only four states that require all public high school students to take the ACT, its composite is not that far from the national average of 21.1, noted Mary Fergus, spokeswoman for the Illinois State Board of Education."

FORUM: "The Future of Faculty Unions"

2011-08-12T09:42:00.001-05:00

Each week, the Chronicle of Higher Education sends me links to its feature stories. This week's email included many individuals active in labor relations "gathering" online to discuss "The Future of Faculty of Unions."

If this passes for a wide-open discussion in academia, God help us. Notice that there are many individuals offering their views but they are all pro-union. If you are pro-union, that is fine and dandy, but you aren't going to learn much. Even if the forum was explicitly, rather than tacitly, pro-union they could have discussed strategies, methods of pressuring administrations that face pressures from other sides, etc.

On my campus, for example, there is talk of a strike which is a classic union "tool." I haven't seen reference to strikes in any higher ed journals that circulate widely. Do you lose health benefits? (No, but you must pay the full premium and that might alert you to how lucky we are to have our health plans so heavily subsidized). Are you eligible for unemployment compensation? Does the union provide an financial assistance? Short of a strike, what else can unions do (other than file complaints)? The list goes on and on. This discuss has begun on a local blog devoted to faculty issues at my university but you have to burrow through the long threads of comments.

Until putatively pro-union writers put their chips on the table, it sure looks like they have nothing to shoot. No wonder administrations don't take these associations seriously.

Ninite: One-Click Batch Install and Update Your Programs!

2011-08-08T16:18:00.001-05:00

Over at my eHistory blog I posted the first of several tips for cutting down the time you spend on installing (and updating) programs. The profiled program is Ninite. Check it out!

Court Victory for Health Insurance Carriers

2011-08-03T17:05:00.000-05:00

NOTE: Hat tip to SUAA, one of the finest sources of real-time information on issues pertaining to state employee benefits. And membership is only $20 per year!

The State of Illinois lost its case in a unanimous ruling favoring Health Alliance and other carriers who protested the policy change by Quinn's administration. Read the State Journal-Register story.

"Administrative Bloat": Irascible Professor Blog

2011-07-17T11:11:00.001-05:00

"Administrative bloat" is not on my Top Ten List of evil things in academia. Nevertheless, since this is a perennial issue at my campus, I pass along the following post from a blog in California.

http://irascibleprofessor.com/comments-07-14-11.htm

HT: George Leef at NAS Blog

AFSCME: Quinn "even lower" than Governor Walker

2011-07-02T19:44:00.006-05:00

UPDATE: To their credit SIUC Unions United seem to have learned from 2011 and the run-ins with the Illinois Democratic establishment. See this latest story from their blog.

The Southern Illinoisan reports on Quinn's backpedaling on a deal negotiated with AFSCME, the union representing many local and state workers.

Here is another story on the union's response. Some choice excerpts:

“Today Pat Quinn has shown that his signature on such negotiated agreements is not worth the paper it’s printed on."

“Republican governors Scott Walker of Wisconsin, John Kasich of Ohio, Chris Christie of New Jersey and others have recently sought changes in law to eliminate the right of collective bargaining for public employees. By choosing to simply ignore a legally binding agreement, Pat Quinn has sunk even lower. Not only is Quinn’s assault on public employee collective bargaining unprecedented in the four decades of state employee bargaining in Illinois, given his repeated criticism of Walker and others, it is utterly hypocritical."

This past year union negotiations bogged down at SIUC. There are many factors at play but anyone watching Springfield knew that the vast right-wing conspiracy theories, the obsessive demonization of Cheng, and the Support Wisconsin rhetoric was distracting from a simple reality: politicians of either party "go where the money is" (the old bank robber quote). Illinois politicians (both parties) made a helluva mess and went first after pensions (look for that again; Quinn stayed silent during the whole effort to slash union pension benefits). A massive "temporary" tax increase didn't close the huge gap so our future will be determined in part by what happens with SIUC negotiations but the greater threat to our future benefits is from Springfield.

And, no, at last word the Koch brothers were not behind Quinn, Emanuel and Madigan's recent measures. Liberal Chicago billionaires supported these changes. Exhibit A: Penny Pritzker, national finance chair for Obama in the '08 election, doing her part for/with Emanuel in undermining the ability of unions to strike in Cook County. For more on the reliably Democratic billionaires, read this piece.

I'm "shocked! shocked!" to find that leading Illinois Democrats, from the governor on down, will back stab unions. Say it ain't so! Where is Obama to chide our governor? Welcome to Illinois politics."See no evil, hear no evil" as long as the Democrats are in power.

State High Courts: Pension COLAs Can Be Cut Despite Constitution

2011-07-01T13:45:00.002-05:00

Hot off Capitolfax.com:

Colorado and Minnesota rule that pensions may be cut. Colorado's constitution had a pension clause, though not as strong as Illinois clause. Nevertheless, this is precisely what I warned about: the deepest cuts come by slashing away at the cost-of-living and capping at a "high" $106,000 amount (not so high in future dollars if you take inflation into account. Four percent inflation would cut the present value of that cap to less than $30,000 in a 36 year career! No matter how much you pay into the pension).

So far, the media has done no coverage on how the Illinois Supreme Court might rule on these issues. After all, the Constitutional language about "interstate commerce" was crystal clear until the New Deal: "interstate" meant "interstate"! But then it meant "anything that might possibly enter the stream of interstate commerce or indirectly influence it by not entering the stream of commerce." In other words, constitutional protections (of all kinds) ain't what they used to be.

If you plan on retiring with a State of Illinois pension, gird your loins for many more battles and join the SUAA. They not only lobby but keep you up to date in a way that no other group does.

Rahm Emanuel Knows How to Handle Unions!

2011-06-29T23:12:00.000-05:00

Rahm Emanuel was never a fan of labor unions (or anyone who gets in his way). Obama's former chief of staff, turned Mayor of Chicago, got a state act to raise strike votes to 75% aye required of unions in his jurisdiction. Imagine if an elected Republican executive did such a thing in neighboring Wisconsin. (Wait, we don't have to imagine).

The unions' response, since they are in a joint venture with the Democratic Party: "Isn't this wonderful that we can come to an agreement without getting nasty like unions have to do with Evil Meanie Republican Governor Scott in Wisconsin?" From Chicago Tribune:

"In a recurring early theme of his tenure, Mayor Rahm Emanuel put the squeeze on organized labor Wednesday, telling City Hall unions he’ll lay off 625 workers unless they quickly get on board with money-saving changes to their jobs. . . .

The unions, caught off-guard by the mayor’s public throw-down, said the blame belongs on the politicians.

“There have been absolutely no negotiations between the city and the unions representing the city’s workforce,” said a joint statement by Jorge Ramirez, of the Chicago Federation of Labor. . . "

Rejecting furloughs as "hurting morale" (Daley's previous measure), Emanuel prefers layoffs:

“It is not necessary to do the layoffs if you agree to these reforms. If you don’t, that will be the choice left to me on behalf of the taxpayers,” Emanuel said. “So you can employ people and balance the budget. They have to be a partner to do it. I cannot do it without them. But if they don’t agree to it, 625 people and their families will lose that job.”

By the Numbers: What's Your Major Worth?

2011-05-31T12:41:00.002-05:00

At the risk of incurring the wrath of humanities types who are loath to put a dollar sign on the "pricelessness" of what they/we offer, here is a great report on which majors pay how much:

http://cew.georgetown.edu/whatsitworth/

Mostly common sense: engineering majors make more than any other group. Wide variance within the Humanities, with History at the top (yeah!) with $57,000 and Theology/Religious Vocations at the bottom. The latter, of course, "store up their treasure in heaven." If you exclude the heaven-rich category, Intercultural or International Studies is the lowest paid degree.

Just as my college kicks off a Global Studies focus. I knew it would be a hard sell, up there with "I spent four years learning how to 'sustain' the Earth!"

Health Alliance Update: House Votes 98-15 to Restore the HMO, Kabosh Quinn's Change to Health Care

2011-05-30T19:32:00.000-05:00

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/politics-and-government/2011-05-30/bill-keeping-insurance-two-years-goes-governor.html

Earlier, the State Senate also voted by a veto-proof margin to keep Health Alliance alive. The only people against are those from Chicago because they wanted more choice at the expense of any one not in Chicago area.

Quinn expected to veto and there is no time to override. Watch wobbly Quinn, who ducks hard issues, become a stubborn "don't-question-my-judgment" governor on this one.

As I said in an earlier post, Illinois IS Chicago even when Chicago musters less than 15% vote!

Civic Committee and Pension Reform: Membership includes . . .

2011-05-30T14:41:00.009-05:00

Critics have said that "big money corporate interests" are guiding the Civic Committee of Chicago to push for pension reform. Perhaps, but it's membership is diverse and includes several university presidents, including Michael Hogan. The richest members are the Crowns and Pritzkers--multi-billionaire families from Chicago and BIG, BIG backers of Obama. In fact, as Jewish donors sour on Obama, Penny Pritzker (who happens to be Jewish) is trying to reassure Jewish donors about the president's stance on Israel. (Penny Pritzker was a chief campaign fundraiser for Obama in 2008).

So, if "corporate interests" are behind pension reform in Illinois, it's not the Koch brothers but some very liberal Democratic billionaires. ; - )

To wit: Illinois is not Wisconsin. Illinois is Illinois. Or, rather, Illinois is Chicago. Ha!

Here is a membership list:

http://www.civiccommittee.org/members/index.html

Postscript to earlier story on death of SB 512: On June 10th they will announce the new Money Purchase Formula, which many expect to be lower. They can legislate pensions away and they can nibble them away with bureaucratic tweaks here and there. Expect a piecemeal, split SB 512 that may not include all the retirement systems (it already exempted cops, fire fighters and prison personnel). Also expect changes to pension formulae and whatever else can be done by faceless bureaucrats.

SB 512 Seems Dead until Fall!

2011-05-30T14:14:00.001-05:00

Pension bill dead this session. Postponed until Fall!

http://capitolfax.com/2011/05/30/memorial-day-session-live-blog/

May 30, 2011

STATEMENT REGARDING PENSION REFORM

We are absolutely committed to reforming Illinois’ public pension system for current employees. It must be done to stabilize our systems and address long term financial issues for both the public employee pension systems and state government.

We believe passage of legislation addressing this issue is essential to the state’s well being.

It was made very clear during the May 26th hearing in the Personnel and Pensions Committee that both those who support pension reform and those who are opposed to Senate Bill 512 acknowledge we have a problem and something must be done.

Our goal is to enact reforms to our pension systems that provide a long term solution for both those who are members of the pension systems and those who fund them.

We will convene meetings over the summer to address the issues and concerns that have been raised and work toward a solution in this year’s Fall Veto Session. [Emphasis added]

-Illinois House Speaker Michael J. Madigan
-Illinois House Republican Leader Tom Cross
-Tyrone Fahner, President, Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago

CARTOON VIDEO: "What About Bob? Pension Talk with Michelle Obama in 2035"

2011-05-28T12:59:00.007-05:00

In 2011, the state of Illinois public pension was on the brink of disaster, with unfunded liabilities upward of $100 billion. By adjusting the benefits and contributions of current workers, the disaster was averted for those then retired. Those workers of 2011 "did their part" and are still working today, many of them into their 80s and 90s. They knew that it was more important to keep the seniors of 2011 in comfortable retirement so that taxpayers would not be burdened with the false promises of past politicians.

Now the year is 2035 and we look backward for lessons as Social Security is on a similar brink. While there are differences, there are many similarities: politicians promised too much, past generations did not adequately fund those promises, and the number of current workers is not keeping up with the growth in retirees. Even today, the retirement age is only 67 and those seniors vote. Politicians are caught in a bind and so we turn to President Michelle Obama, this nation's first female president and husband former president Barack Obama, both natives of Illinois. Knowing the "Illinois Lesson" well, President Obama calls an ordinary American to discuss what he can do. We will call our Everyman "Bob."

Click here for the full cartoon video (it views better in full screen - click the full screen icon on the bottom LH corner of the video):

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/12152682/what-about-bob-pension-talk-in-2035

Who is Behind Illinois Pension Reform? Hint: Rahm Emanuel would be very happy

2011-05-27T22:27:00.002-05:00

News story on Rahm Emanuel's well-known antipathy to unions (and anything else that stands in his way):
http://www.chicagonewscoop.org/emanuel-exerting-influence-in-springfield/

Emanuel’s lobbyists were successful in their effort to include city workers in a controversial pension bill. The measure would require city employees to pay more into their pensions, along with state workers, teachers and university employees. Chicago police and firefighters were not included in the bill. The proposal advanced out of a House committee Thursday.

Some legal experts say the plan would violate the Illinois Constitution, which says pension benefits “shall not be diminished or impaired.” But with heavyweights including Emanuel and House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) supporting it, the measure gains stronger legs as it moves to the Senate.

During the mayoral campaign, Emanuel was vocal about the need to address the city’s underfunded pension system, but he did not say how he would fix the problem. He was not endorsed by the city’s police and firefighter unions due to concerns he would reduce pension benefits, and he lost several wards with heavy police and fire populations on Election Day.

Of course, there are many others who want pension reform and "honest men may disagree" but Emanuel is in the play on this one.

Health Alliance Update! Senate votes to block Quinn's cancellation of Health Alliance

2011-05-27T21:53:00.001-05:00

Read the following: The vote was 37-13

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/health/health-care/2011-05-27/bill-undoing-health-contracts-clears-senate-future-uncertain.html

On the Lighter Side (Sort of): SIUC will have 64,000 students!

2011-05-27T18:37:00.001-05:00

In the midst of doom and gloom, here is something on the lighter side (in a perverse way). It is a lesson in not projecting current trends onto the future, because some historian of the future may find your forecast and mock it (but wish it were true!).

In my office, I found a cache of old documents. One caught my eye: A projection (dated 1970) on what enrollment would be in 1980. The forecaster projected that SIU-Carbondale's enrollment would increase from 23,000 in 1969 to 32,500 by 1980 (click to enlarge).

Oops! If he had projected it to the present, SIU-C enrollment would be approximately 64,500 in 2012!

Ceteris paribus

What About Bob? Pension Talk in 2035

2011-05-27T15:20:00.010-05:00

****

Phone rings. Machine voice: "Call is from Out of Area"

Bob: "Hello?"

President: Bob, this is President Obama, do you have a moment?

Bob: Mrs. President, it is an honor.

President: Bob, as a fellow Illinoisan, I am sure you remember the Great Pension Reform of 2011?

Bob: Sure do! We almost went broke until the two parties got together to fix the problem.

President: Well, Bob, that's why I am calling you. I am coming back to Chicago to launch a new reform of Social Security based on the Illinois Model. I'm sure you know that Social Security is on the brink of fiscal disaster?

Bob: Heck, yes. Everyone here is just worried sick that "Social Security won't be there."

President: Exactly. We want to make sure that your Mom and Dad [both on Social Security] are taken care of so you don't have to put them up in a room.

Bob: So, Mrs. President, no one else has a plan, and your party put a clause in there protecting the future Social Security benefits of retirees. I believe that was passed after the Scare of 2011 in Illinois by self-serving politicians eager for votes?

President: (Chuckles). Yes, we politicians can be self-centered and we don't always do the right thing. Sometimes, though, we do. I hope to do the right thing now even though it won't be popular. "Shared sacrifice" is never popular.

Bob: Mrs. President, I appreciate your honesty. It's refreshing coming from a politician.

President: OK, Bob, I know you are a busy accountant so I'll get down to business. Our plan to rescue Social Security will require some sacrifice from you and other current workers. You won't be alone, we are asking all workers to pay for their future Social Security benefits and those of your Mom and Dad.

Bob: (Silence).

President: Are you there, Bob?

Bob: (Coughs). Yes, Mrs. President, I was just wondering what you had in mind.

President: As you know, the bond rating of the USA is slipping and your children will pay the price. Plus we want to make sure your parents are comfortable in their retirement. It is your generation's turn to become the Next Greatest Generation.

Bob: (Stiffens) Go on.

President: Bob, let me make myself perfectly clear: your parents' will receive their benefits and you will receive benefits. In fact, you will be given choices that you did not have before.

Bob: Choice is always good.

President: Bob, I know you are self-employed and also employ several other people. In the past, we have asked you to contribute 7% as an employer and deduct 7% from your employees. I know that means you pay 14% for your own self-employment contribution.

Bob: It's hard and, I'll be frank, I'm not very happy paying it because a lot of people say "Social Security won't be there."

President: That's where they are wrong, Bob! It will be there for you, your parents and your children but we must reform it -- just as we did back in 2011. The first step is to double your contribution and that of your employees. I know that sounds difficult but the money will stimulate the economy and it will preserve 100% of your parents' Social Security benefits.

Bob: Mrs. President, that is 28% for me and every one of my employees!!

President: That's the difficult part but, again, if workers don't do it, we may need to tax everyone in the country with a Value Added Tax (VAT) that hits nonworkers (the poor) and workers alike.

Bob: I don't know. What about that constitutional amendment preserving benefits?

President: Bob, open your history books! In 2011, we kept your benefits but merely required that you pay more for them. We also gave you the choice to opt out and accept a smaller defined contribution plan.

Bob: Yes, but as I recall they doubled payroll taxes of Illinois state employees only and then doubled them again three years later when the actuary guys ran their numbers. That means my payroll tax would be 56% before I got to anything else!! (Voice rises)

President: Please, Bob, do not call it a tax. It is NOT a tax; it is a "contribution." True, we only hit state employees back in 2011 because their retirees were in trouble. But Social Security covers everyone in the nation so we have to ask ALL workers to share in the sacrifice. And, remember, you can opt for the trimmed down defined contribution plan.

Bob: But that won't allow me to retire. I can't handle that tax plus the other taxes, even with all the loopholes I know as a CPA.

President: Again, let me make myself clear: it is not a tax. We may have to call it that if this is challenged but we hope that won't happen.

Bob: Mrs. President, you encouraged us to get an advanced education and I have a B.S. in business, MBA and CPA. I didn't start my career in earnest until I was age 30. I am now 50. When can I retire?

President: About that. We will have to raise the retirement age to 70. Remember we already raised it once, from 65 to 67 when Social Security was in crisis back in the 1980s.

Bob: So, let me get this straight: I pay FOUR times as much but I still get to keep all my benefits?

President: Yes, up to a maximum of $106,800 X 80% or approximately $85,000.

Bob: Why the limit?

President: Sometimes you reach a point when enough is enough. Besides, you know that most people don't make that much.

Bob: But what is wrong with working hard and making more than that?

President: There is nothing wrong but fairness requires those who are better off to help those who are not so well off.

Bob: I have my doubts, Mrs. President. You say my benefits -- all of them -- will be there when I retire?

President: Absolutely. I promise.

Bob: Will they be adjusted for inflation, because I can't retire for another 20 years.

President: Your benefits will be adjusted for half the rate of inflation after you retire.

Bob: Wait there. My maximum benefit is $85K now and you don't adjust that until AFTER I retire? Are you saying that in 2055 my maximum benefit will still be $85K even though inflation will eat away at that figure? Even at 4% inflation, that means my benefit is a fraction of what you promised yesterday!

President: You are quick, Bob. Most people don't understand the effects of inflation. But it's the only way we can guarantee everyone 100% of their benefits in some form, today's dollars, future dollars, whatever.

Bob: I'm a businessman, Mrs. President. How can I compete with outsourced accountants who can undercut me? As I recall, a lot of businesses fled Illinois after 2011 so it wasn't all peaches and cream.

President: That is just Republican scare mongering. The population of Illinois may be smaller, older and less "productive" according to my opponents, but my 2034 U.S. Happiness Study found that the people of Illinois were happier than other people based on 63 different criteria adopted from the OECD in Europe.

Bob: Really?

President: Remember, Bob, no matter how poor you feel, you can't put a price on happiness. So "don't worry, be happy" my friend.

PENSION UPDATE: Hug Your Local Legislator!

2011-05-27T13:57:00.001-05:00

I just heard from Mike Bost and he is voting a strong NO! on SB 512.

FYI: I will blog soon on the tremendous efforts of the SUAA (State Universities Annuitants Association). Led by Tom Welch and Linda Brookhart (who helps me answer your questions), they are dedicated to this one issue. Please join them (it's approx. $30/year). A worthy investment.

Go to suaa.org and check out the information.

PS: Seems the bill is getting a lot of opposition!!

Here Comes the Pension Bill: Devilish Details, Part I

2011-05-26T10:38:00.001-05:00

Rich Miller at Capitolfax.com notes the following (which didn't get by me but is lost in the fire burning over this issue):

"The media has completely ignored this aspect of the plan, and it’s buried way down in the SJ-R story today…

The Tier 1 contribution rates are subject to revision after the first three years and every three years thereafter. If the contributions become too burdensome, an employee can move down to Tier 2 or Tier 3 but never back up.

In other words, those numbers you see above aren’t final by any means. The contributions will automatically be recalculated every three years, and those contributions could very well be recalculated upwards as people leave the system. That scenario is a huge political nightmare for many, many legislators." (bold added for emphasis)

URGENT [EDITED]: Springfield pols out to Clean your Pension Clock: Read Amended SB 512

2011-05-25T16:57:00.021-05:00

Read the whole bill before tomorrow's hearing (ha, ha) because the devil is in the details.

*UPDATE* I've learned from SUAA that the "actuarial formula minus six percent" (in effect after three years of pension reform) WILL be higher than the 15.3% pension contribution set for 2013-2015 (could be up to 28%; be grateful, it is less than the 34% demanded of judges now).

Get off your Tier I pension or lose it all. A lose-lose scenario. The beauty of the thing: while legislators will have to stand and vote for 15% (12.75 percent K-12), the actuaries will do the real kill job in three years. Brilliant!

But, remember, we will earn at least the equivalent of Social Security! Now there is another "contract between generations" that will stand the test of time (snark). Unless they spend our newly "deleveraged" dollars on something else and decide that we only need 3% and throw us on Social Security like they did federal employees.

ORIGINAL BLOG:

This is written fast and furious because the hearings are tomorrow. Excerpts from the gobbledygook amendments made to SB 512 below:

Great indeterminacy. The only definite thing is a) the state won't pay more than 6%. Your retirement will be at least equal to Social Security benefits (what a joke).

To keep (for now) our "constitutionally guaranteed" defined benefit packages, we must all pay more, 15.31% of compensation (presumably salary and not all "compensation" including benefits?). Thereafter it is based on some actuarial formula that is in the hands of the state with history of rigging numbers. So your future contribution amount may be higher or lower (assume higher).

Sum up: it reads like it was written by mafia lawyers: sign or we kneecap you.
..
Sec. 8-103.3. Traditional benefit package. "Traditional
benefit package": The defined benefit retirement program
maintained under the Fund for employees who first became
participants in the Fund before January 1, 2011.
. . .
(1) Participants who elect the traditional or portable
defined benefit package shall contribute:

(A) In fiscal year 2013, fiscal year 2014, and

fiscal year 2015, an amount equal to 15.31% of salary [teachers only increase 3.35% but SURS employees must pay 7.3% more than we are now].

(B) In fiscal year 2016 and in each fiscal year
thereafter, a percentage of salary equal to the
actuarially determined normal cost of the traditional
defined benefit package ["We'll tell you later and you accept the numbers we give you, sucker!"], minus employer contributions [6%]
...
The following clause is a puzzler: they want us in Self-Managed Plans but no more than 20% of us?

Sec. 10-110. Maximum self-managed plan participation. By
July 1, 2012, the Fund shall certify the total active
participant population. When the number of participants that
elect the self-managed plan is equal to 20% of the total active
participant population, then no participant may elect the
self-managed plan.

RETIREMENT SALARY CAP:

(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article,
the required contribution of a participant who first becomes a
participant on or after January 1, 2011 shall not exceed the
contribution that would be due under this Article if that
participant's highest salary for annuity purposes were
$106,800, plus any increases in that amount under Section
2-108.1.

But they will adjust it for cost of living increases which are half the rate of inflation or 3% whichever is lower (if inflation is 4%, then you get 2%!). Not clear whether the half-inflation adjustments are annual DURING employment (i.e., cumulative increases) or only when you retire. If you start work now and retire at 67 (another requirement), then $106,000 will be worth a fraction of $106,000 today. Makes for good envy-based politics though and people (voters) don't think ahead.

Good news (cough, cough): The state promises -- PROMISES! -- that your retirement package will at least equal what you would get under Social Security. OMG! My wife worked for social security and the motto was "retirement is a three-legged stool; Social Security is only one leg, a good pension is another, then there is savings." Unless you work for the State of Illinois.

Making Sense of Pension Reform: Defined Benefit versus Self-Managed Plans

2011-05-19T11:37:00.006-05:00

NOTE: If there are any inaccuracies, please report them in the comments.

There is misunderstanding on the part of those with Self-Managed Plans (SMPs) that the proposed pension reform places them in a better position than Defined Benefit (DB) plan members. True, the biggest hit will happen to those in Defined Benefit (DB) plans. The lower impact of the proposed "reforms" (on SMPs) occurs because DB plans (traditional, portable) are much more generous. Nevertheless, keep this in mind: if you are in a DB plan, you KEEP ALL PAST EARNINGS: employee AND employer contributions plus interest (averaged 8.5% in past 15 years). The effective rates below:

9–1–97 thru 8–31–98 9%
9–1–98 thru 8–31–99 9.5%
9–1–99 thru 8–31–02 10%
9–1–02 thru 8–31–03 9%
9–1–03 thru 6–30–05 8%
7–1–05 thru 6–30–09 8.5%
7–1–09 thru 6–30–10 8%
7–1–10 thru 6–30–12 7.5%

Source: SURS

This money doesn't disappear if the legislature effectively forces DB members into 401(k) style SMP plans. Here are the advantages of DB over SMP:

1. Under SMP stock investment plans, it would be hard to match the 8.5% over those years. Example: employee hired in January 1998. The Dow Jones ("stock market" average) was 6450. Thirteen years later end of 2011, the stock market was at 11,577. That is an 80% increase. HOWEVER, if that employee had earned 8.5%/year (on average) his/her money would have doubled after 8.5 years and tripled after 13 years. In other words, SMP stock market investments would have had to TRIPLE to match the DB plan -- that is equivalent to a stock market average of 20,000 at end of 2011 rather than 11,577.

Source: http://www.econstats.com/eqty/eqea_mi_3.htm

How did DB outperform the stock market? This is controversial: first, keep in mind that the pension contributions are invested in a mix of stocks and bonds. Critics, however, believe that the pension board has goosed the numbers to please legislators: the higher expected rate of return, the less legislators must contribute! The truth is probably in the middle.

2. DB is more generous because the politicians are attacking it. Numbers aside, they are like the bank robber who was asked "why did you steal from the bank?" Answer: "Because that is where they keep the money!" Why?

3. Employers contribute 9.1% versus 7.1% for SMP employees (7.5% before expenses removed).

4. Cost of living: this is a HUGE factor -- when I ran financial plans for clients back in the 1980s, they grossly underestimated how much the cost of living (inflation) would erode the real value of their retirement savings. Yet the State protects DB recipients against inflation. SMP recipients are on their own -- each year their retirement fund is worth less.

5. SMPs are favored under the new Madigan/Cullerton bill in the legislature: state contribution "only" drops to 6% (although it may be 5.6% after expenses removed). Wonder why? Tens of billions of dollars in IOUs go POOF! when we are all on SMPs.

"What is to be done?" Note the usual caveat that you should seek advice from a licensed broker, estate planner, laywer, etc. before making any financial decisions. What would I do if I were a DB employee faced with a 7.3% increase in my pension payroll deduction? I'd hang tight until the courts have ruled. I don't expect much of the judiciary since the New Deal Court Revolution rendered government contracts something that could be changed at the whim of those in power. But who knows? Keep in mind you are still ahead of people who chose SMP over the years expecting to "beat the market" (and being handicapped with a lower state contribution!).

I joke that current retirees are "LGRs": the Last Generation of Retirees. It has nothing to do with partisan or class warfare but, rather, generational warfare -- and a "war" that isn't even declared but simply happened due the confluence of past events and current demographics.

On the generational front, there is positive news: if your parents left you or your spouse a trust fund/inheritance, you may still be able to retire and send the kids to private college. The rest of you are screwed. But I must end on a happy note. . .

There is another State of Illinois plan to raise retirement money (scroll down):

Health Alliance: UPDATE!

2011-05-18T17:16:00.000-05:00

This year the great State of Illinois dropped Health Alliance HMO from its list of providers and replaced it with two carriers that better serve the Chicago area but have no downstate presence. This caused a bipartisan uproar "downstate," where Health Alliance serves 100,000 state employees. (Disclosure: I am a happy Health Alliance member and cringed when I heard the news that the state was dropping HA).

I contacted Senator Frerichs (D-Champaign), "point man" in Springfield leading the charge to "reset" the button on bidding. Below is his email to those of us who subscribed to updates on this issue:

"There's been some confusion surrounding the State's recent decision to drop Health Alliance's contract for group health insurance. Much has happened in Springfield and we've learned new information since the Governor's office and the Department of Healthcare and Family Services (HFS) first announced this decision on April 6^th. I want to take this opportunity to review what's happened so far, and update you on next steps.

I've posted this timeline on my website which walks us through major events, starting from the initial announcement on April 6 through May 11, when the Chief Procurement Officer at the Executive Ethics Commission officially began his review of Health Alliance's protest. I'd encourage you to explore the relevant documents and news articles linked to in the timeline to gain a full perspective.

Click here to view the Timeline of Events surrounding the Health Alliance decision.

I particularly want to highlight two important next steps in the process which will determine if Health Alliance will continue to be an option for quality, affordable health insurance in downstate Illinois.

First, it's important to know that upon discovering their contract was not renewed, Health Alliance immediately filed a protest of the decision. The review of this protest officially began May 11 at the Executive Ethics Commission. Look for a decision from Matt Brown, the Chief Procurement Officer, in the next few weeks.

Next, and regardless of the outcome of the protest review, current statute requires the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability (COGFA) to "advise and consent" on the new group health insurance contracts. There are some disagreements about what power this "advise and consent" language actually grants COGFA, but in my opinion, the language clearly implies COGFA's ability to reject new contracts. As I explained in a recent Op-Ed in the Champaign News-Gazette, my intention as one of the members of COGFA is to vote against the new contracts. Look for COGFA to announce its next meeting sometime in the next few weeks.

The best outcome we can hope for from either of these upcoming steps is this: the process will be re-started and contracts will be re-bid. If the protest review yields a favorable outcome, or if COGFA does not approve the new contracts, it essentially hits the "reset button." Current health care contracts could be extended during the re-bidding process so no one's current health care would be disrupted.

Keep an eye out for these next steps in the process, and I'll do my best to keep you informed as new information becomes available. Thank you to the hundreds of you who have reached out to my office to express your concerns. I appreciate your input and I'll continue to do my best to ensure access to quality, affordable healthcare for our community.

In order for us to continue to stay in touch, it's important that you have my updated email address, which is frerichs@senatedem.illinois.gov. Please don't hesitate to email my office with any comments or concerns you may have.

Sincerely,

Senator Michael Frerichs

45 E. University Ave.
Suite 206
Champaign, IL 61820
Email: Frerichs@senatedem.illinois.gov
Office: (217) 355-5252
Fax: (217) 355-5255

Danville Office:
28 W. North Street
1st Floor
Danville, IL 61832
Office: (217) 442-5252

Pension Reform for all but Judges: Craven Effort to Buy Judicial Favor?

2011-05-15T23:00:00.002-05:00

A northern Illinois newspaper notes how the Democrats in Springfield excluded judges, apparently (according to paper) in an effort to head off any personal animosity judges might feel in response to pension cuts. You see, judges are state employees too. The civics drivel taught in government schools about judicial review, lifetime tenure, separation of powers . . . well, it hasn't caught up to America in 2011, especially the Illinoisan corner of the USA.

Excerpt:

The Illinois Constitution says public employee pensions “shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.” Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, has said changing pension benefits for current employees is unconstitutional but plans to allow a vote in his chamber if the bill passes in the House.

“Half the people think that’s it,” McCarthy said of the hope that the law will not be struck down if it doesn’t affect judges. “Many of the members are legal people, so I think they have a vested interest in not irritating the judges they have to appear in front of.

“I’m sure no judge would do that, but you know.... I wish they were in, to tell you the truth.”

Rep. Rich Brauer, R-Petersburg, criticized the exclusion of judges.

“That’s the only way they can get that thing passed,” Brauer said.

Quote of the Week: Glenn Poshard's One Liner Defending Our Pensions

2011-05-14T10:21:00.000-05:00

In a recent email memo to SIUC staff, Glenn Poshard talked at length about the likelihood of major cuts to our pensions (all types, not just defined benefit). He included a great one liner worth repeating:

POSHARD:

In my view, this plan, including all of these options, represents no less than a forced migration into lower pension benefit plans for university employees. The notion that proponents of this legislation are suggesting that this plan can somehow withstand scrutiny on the constitutional issue of diminishment of benefits because it somehow provides a choice of options for employees, is comparable to the idea that there are free elections in Venezuela.

I'd Rather Be in Wisconsin: Illinois Democratic Leadership Attacks Pension -- Bye, Bye Constitution

2011-05-13T20:50:00.007-05:00

http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=2255&section=Article

“....Madigan and Cross intend to run a new bill that changes the benefits for current employees. According to the current legislative proposal (not quite fully shaped, but soon to be inserted into a Pension Bill —currently an amendment to SB 512) current employees will have three "options" beginning in June 2012:

OPTION ONE: Teachers may remain in the current plan and pay a considerably higher employee contribution (possibly as high as 15 percent);

OPTION TWO: Teachers may move to the new "Tier II" plan passed last year for new employees.

Tier II reduces benefits dramatically (retirement age increases, COLA changes, using 8 years instead of 4 for average salary for pension purposes, etc.) and pay the same 9% contribution;

OPTION THREE: Chose to have an employer contribution (6%) made to a separate "Defined Contribution" plan along with your employee contribution.

In recent weeks, the Illinois Democratic leadership "works together" with IEA. The IEA opposes and then relents to anti-union acts, stating "this is not Wisconsin."

It sure ain't -- it's far worse: latest pension bill (SB 312) requires those of us with defined benefit pensions to increase our contributions from 8% to 14.5% --- a 6.5% increase (pay cut)! That's to keep our "constitutionally guaranteed" pension.

"Pinkie promise."

Even worse, because the state is contributing so little (2%?) the feds will probably add Social Security tax (another 6.5% for retirement) based on the reasoning that our employer isn't offering a satisfactory pension.

Do the math: 6.5 + 6.5 = 13% pay cut to keep a pension not to be "diminished or impaired" (IL state constitution).

In Wisconsin, Republican Senator Scott Walker went after making workers pay half the pension contributions or 5.8%. Wisconsin: 5.8 versus Illinois 14.5% (even without added SSA tax).

Why are people on the Left surprised? This is progressive law coming home to roost. The men and women in Springfield are not progressives but some of their opponents call themselves "progressives." Yet progressives were never very big on "original intent" or "plain meaning" of constitutions," were they? The state constitution means as little as the federal constitution. And now the Left is "shocked! shocked!" that people aren't looking at the letter of the constitution or even top Democratic legal counsel analysis (worth reading - below):

http://www.illinoissenatedemocrats.com/images/pensions/D/Madiar%20Pension%20Abstract%2003-02-11.pdf

Full 76-page analysis:

http://www.illinoissenatedemocrats.com/images/pensions/D/Pension%20Clause%20Article%20Final.pdf

Where is the SIUC FA? No word on their site? They are busy demonizing Chancellor Cheng for her temporary 2% pay cut while ignoring the tsunami in Springfield. But, hey, it may all be over by next week. Making politics personal can sometimes be counterproductive . . .

“O(h no) Canada!” MTV Signature Song Banned

2011-05-07T11:53:00.006-05:00

When I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, the stereotypical bowdlerizers of speech--the people excising "offensive" lyrics and literature-- were the uptight blue-nosed sort who feared that "someone, somewhere, was having fun." (H.L. Mencken).

Now, the "progressive" Left has replaced the Puritanical Right as the great policer of speech. "Progressives" have always policed speech ("you are politically incorrect, comrade!") so this is really nothing new. Both Left and Right have a long history of searching out words they feel are too sensitive to the ears of minors or thin-skinned individuals.

(Apologies in advance for those who suffer from blue noses or thin skin).

Latest example: the Canadian "Standards Council" has banned the Dire Straits song for using the word "faggot" in the classic 1980s tune "Money for Nothing." I learned this after listening to the song on the Dire Straits' album "Brothers in Arms." The song brought back memories of my youth so I searched out the video which was as good as I recalled (classic MTV video of the 1980s). Alas, the video has also been excised so that it is "good for all countries." Now Canada can join the Religious Right in America and the Muslim bloc (in the United Nations) in bullying or outlawing "hate speech." Perhaps the result will be some Universalist Code of Speech.

What makes this even more chilling is that they are attacking not only present speech but scouring the past for things that might offend someone if ever read or heard now. Shades of Fahrenheit 451.

The new rule of thumb: don't say anything that might offend any one one hundred years from now. Good luck guessing what might be on the "hit list" in the year 2111!

Coda: the secondary definition for "bluenosed: "Canadian."

Kind of appropriate, eh?

Libertarian Defends Professor Cronon (while blasting the hypocrisy of the Left)

2011-04-12T17:18:00.001-05:00

Over at the leading libertarian magazine, Reason, writer Shikha Dalmia attacks conservatives for using FOIA laws to invade the privacy of historian William Cronon. At the same time, Dalmia defends Open Records laws while noting that groups may abuse their rights by going after individuals. On that score, the Left comes in for a tongue lashing for politicizing the process (and so much else in academia).

Frankly, I'm surprised that Professor Cronon was so clueless about the dangers of work email addresses. I've said it before (here, here, and here): your work email is state property and open to reading by your university or outsiders who file FOIA requests.

Bottom line: DO NOT USE YOUR .edu account for anything unrelated to work. Use another account.

"Last and final offer": Full Text

2011-04-03T20:17:00.007-05:00

The Faculty Association has it buried in their links and not on their front page. Here is the offer made by the administration and rejected by the union:

http://www.ieanea.org/local/siucfa/assets/siucfa-1yearagreement32511.pdf

Interesting that the Board couldn't agree to an index for a future contract but did feel it necessary to be politically correct by adding "transgendered" to the language of this offer!

"Section 1.02. Gender. Unless the context in which they are used clearly requires otherwise, words used in this contract denoting gender shall refer to the masculine or feminine or transgendered."

I know we have transgendered bathrooms but do they have one in Anthony Hall? How could the two sides and three genders bargain amicably if there was no bathroom for the third gender?

More seriously, check out the changes to the contract.

*No pay raise

*ARTICLE 18: Furlough Days

*ARTICLE 19: Layoff procedures ("Reduction in Force")

Key phrase:

"19.02. If the Board decides it is necessary to fully or partially lay off Faculty members in accordance with this Article, the factors which will be considered in light of the University’s program needs, in determining which, if any, employees will be retained, are: length of full-time service at the University, including approved leaves; length of full-time service in the department, including approved leaves; educational qualifications; professional training; and professional experiences. The full or partial layoff of Faculty members in the level of organization as determined by the Board to which the layoff applies shall be in the order listed below:

a. Full-time untenured tenure-track Faculty;

b. Tenured Faculty."

*Distance Learning section stripped from the Addendum B but retained in Addendum D.

OPEN FOR COMMENTS

They're Mad as Hell: Grad Students Face Job Market

2011-02-14T09:04:00.002-06:00

As the academic job market worsens (was it ever good?), graduate students are angry, according to an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Don't expect a protest march in the streets burning PhD gowns, but the blinkered view of some tenured faculty about the job market must drive a grad student nuts.

I had a mentor who let me know I would have to walk on water, or at least not sink too much, to be considered for jobs. That was 1994 and half my applications (75 out of 150) were for community colleges. At the time, I considered that market second-class until I arrived at Southern Illinois University and found we had a Community College Teaching certificate. Together with a M.A. (or PhD) many of our grads have gone on to satisfying careers as full-time community college instructors. Did they have to pay their dues (a year or two of adjuncting), yes, but so what?

This is a growth sector of the job market and I encourage grad students in all fields to consider it. It's not just for Gen Ed instructors -- one of my former grad students is teaching history and construction courses!

It's tempting to curse the darkness but this is just one candle to light. If others have ideas for grad students in job-short fields, send them here.

For links on job advice for graduate students (with emphasis on History), see this post at my eHistory blog.

For the association representing schools with community college prep degrees in administration and teaching, click here.

Be Patriotic! Cheat! Spend!

2010-11-27T10:59:00.000-06:00

In a recent post, Ashley Thorne discusses "Lessons of a Professional Paper-Writer" . Thorne cites a fascinating Chronicle of Higher Education column entitled "The Shadow Scholar: The man who writes your students' papers tells his story"

This is a class (inequality) issue: those with money can afford to buy entrance to careers, those without cannot advance in life unless they work hard--something not required of their affluent peers. Therefore I propose a federal program, "No Term Papers Left Behind" to close the writing gap by 2025. This means-tested program will fund ghost writing in high school and college. No child, no term paper ought to be left behind. Those who are more affluent but lack the proper skills may also be eligible if their standardized test scores fall below a certain level. Differences in intelligence and upbringing are no excuse for failing our children. We need to embrace those differences!

Statutory definition: “children” are eligible until 26 or until they complete their degree.

This vital federal program will “grow the economy” and give a hand up to the disadvantaged. With a degree in hand, they will earn (but not learn) more. With this increase in aggregate demand, they can stimulate the consumer durable sector of the economy and buy houses to soak up the inventory of unsold homes.

Privacy and confidentiality are ensured and will be protected to the utmost. The U.S. Department of Education will not tolerate revelations of plagiarism: it is nobody’s business but the student who does (or doesn't do) the work. After all, if someone does the work, then American productivity continues to rise---to the benefit of rich and poor alike. So, those dirty rats who would undermine the American dream of college credentialism will be punished.

Meanwhile, practice safe cheating until bourgeois morality (work, thrift, excellence) fades with the introduction of these new teaching methods.It is in the interest of "social justice" and American competitiveness that we have more college graduates. Only then can we boast "We 'r Numbyr Wun!"

Be patriotic! Cheat! Spend!

He's Back! Bill Ayers, Robert Kennedy's Son -- and What this Has to Do With "Higher" Education

2010-11-26T16:07:00.005-06:00

Bill Ayers is back in the news. Robert Kennedy's son, newly on the board of the U of I Chicago, led a move denying Ayers emeritus status as a retired professor. Newsweek covered the story here (they lost a bit of the nuance in my quote but the story is an accurate summation of the controversy).

I had not thought of Ayers since I blogged about him two years ago(“Little Red School House”). In retrospect, while the issue was balance, not bias (so I argued) how does one balance someone so far to the Left? Can one even imagine a former member of the John Birch Society sans explosives being welcomed with open arms by education schools?

On turning radicals into academic entrepreneurs: The more incendiary, the better (think Angela Davis, Ward Churchill). And think of the speaking fees one can draw as a radical professor! Sure, sure, the student fees are supposed to represent the range of opinions in society at large (U.S. Supreme Court, Southworth, 2000). But who polices such Court decisions? The barbarians within the gates? Hardly.

Professor Ayers, erstwhile domestic terrorist, lived on the wild fringe of sixties radicalism. Like so many others, Ayers secured a position in academe that allowed him to bore within education by promoting "social justice" and "revolutionary education." While his ideas on education might seem "out there," they are taught in education schools as part of the canon of "progressive thought"--often in "School and Society" courses required of all future K-12 teachers.

Not that I am ungrateful. I must thank the Ayers of the world for making education school so stultifying that I left and entered graduate school to become a historian – for better and worse.

Portable Software: Better than Ever

2010-11-14T20:01:00.000-06:00

Most of us have programs that we need but do not use very often. Why add a half dozen of these programs to your computer and thus "gunk" it up? Discover the wonderful world of "portable apps!"

A portable application is one that installs on a flash key and leaves no trace on your computer. You can run the program entirely from a flash key or on your computer's hard drive (all your portable applications run from a single folder with subfolders for each application--never touching the computer's registry!). Great for using on public computers that don't allow you to add your software or to fix a friend's computer.

The single best site for portable software (all free) is

http://portableapps.com/

This wonderful site also adds a launcher and auto-updater for all your portable applications (see above sample image. You can change how it looks and how the applications are organized.

Other sites (with launchers and updater):

http://www.pendriveapps.com/
(also comes with a launcher and auto-update)

http://www.liberkey.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_portable_software

Here are the programs that I use but you may find your own "suite" from the list of 300-400 available at the above sites. Many are cross-platform (work on Windows or Mac). All are FREE. Students take note: You can bring your flash key to computer labs (very handy since computer lab PCs do not allow you to add your own software).

7-zip: free (and more powerful) alternative to Winzip. Compress and decompress folders, file batches and test them to see if there are errors.

Audacity: the first user-friendly version of this super-popular audio editor. Past versions frustrated me to no end because they were so complex. This is easy to use and handles all file formats.

Bonkenc: audio conversion

CCleaner: cleans up temp files and registry after install/uninstall.

*Classmate Grading: fantastic grade book (commercial). I've been using it for over ten years. Tried the rest and the small lifetime fee is worth it.

DVD Styler: converts videos (AVI, MP4, FLV, WMV) to a DVD format for playing on DVD players or computers. Awesome for home videos or putting together a presentation. I use it to compile a playlist of music videos for my big flat screen TV.

Firefox 4: OK, I have Firefox on all of my computers but what to do when I'm on the road without a computer? Put Firefox, with all my bookmarks and extensions, on a flash key. I can use on any public access computer and leave no traces behind.

Filehippo Update Checker: Filehippos is an excellent place to download software. It also offers older versions if you don't like the latest version. The free Update Checker scans your computer and identifies all updates of your programs! What a time-saver compared to checking each program manually. You can even set it to run at startup, check all your programs for new versions and then shut down. Wunderbar!

GoogleChrome: fast alternative to Firefox with a huge (free) store of extensions.

Imgburn: CD/DVD/Blu-ray burner. If you are copying DVD video folders: Select “Build” – output as “Device” (not image) – and click the icon to burn. Imgburn will also create mp3 disks and ISO images (a single-file clone of an entire software installation disk). Use the default settings (the advanced features are mind numbing in their complexity).

JavaRa: "removes old and redundant versions of the Java Runtime Environment (JRE). Simply select 'Check for Updates' or 'Remove Older Version' to begin."

MozBackup: backups up all the settings of your Firefox to install them with one or two clicks on another computer's Firefox. No more adding extensions, bookmarks, etc. manually.

OpenOffice 3.3: an excellent alternative to Microsoft Office. The Microsoft suite is still the best but by a thin margin.

PDF-XCHANGE VIEWER: top-rated PDF reader with added features (highlight, typewriting)

PDFTK Builder: all the power of Acrobat in a very small program that splits, combines, merges, edits PDF files.

Renamer: how many times have you imported a batch of files with gobbledygook file names (as with digital camera numbering)? This free program will change file names according to rules that you add from a handy list. For example, I imported pictures of my family in Maine from Summer 2008. I added two rules:

1. Replace camera numbers with “Maine vacation” (followed by number sequence);

2. Add the original file date (the date I took the picture) to the filename suffice. Thus, “Maine Vacation 08-01-2008 (1).” Often, when you copy or import pictures or other files, the date changes to today’s date, not the original date. This corrects that problem and many more.

Revo Uninstaller: better than the built-in Windows uninstaller because it scours the registry and removes all keys. Revo also uninstalls stubborn programs that don't want to be removed!

Startup: great for adding or deleting programs to your startup, delaying startup of a program, etc.

VLC: plays any video or DVD file. Can also record entire movies or clips of movies by hitting a red "Record" button.

WinPatrol: prevents web sites and programs from installing unwanted start-up items (including malware). Paid version provides great information on what those stray programs are on your computer ($30 lifetime fee covers all your computers). This frees up a lot of memory and makes your PC faster. Why do computers "slow down" with age? Because the programs you install inject themselves in start-up and ALWAYS RUN even when you don't need them. This is the number one problem I encounter when “fixing” a newbie’s computer. Because I own Winpatrol Plus, I simply carry (or use) the portable version to help my friends or check my own computers. WinPatrol identifies unneeded software, and you can then disable those that don't need to be running.

Xmedia Recode: a comprehensive audio/video converter. Xmedia handles all formats and has a long list of presets to format to a iPhone, Xbox or other gadget. Fast and useful. Also does batch jobs.

One final note:

Once you find portable programs you like throw the inventor a few bucks. He/she deserves it.

See also:

http://www.davinciplanet.com/reasons-to-use-portable-applications/

http://www.mariosalexandrou.com/blog/?p=232

Yes, Virginia . . . You are All Right

2010-10-28T14:23:00.003-05:00

It is always nice to report good news. In the long struggle for sanity on college campuses, occasionally schools "do the right thing." In this case, the University of Virginia has eliminated all speech codes and earned a "Green Light" from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). For more on the story, click here

To see where your school stands in FIRE ratings, search here

Sadly, most schools are Red or Yellow. Take action by keeping an eye on your alma mater or local university.

Facebook and U: The Dangers of University Email

2010-10-23T20:53:00.006-05:00

A certain Midwestern state requires all of its state employees, university workers included, to undergo "ethics training." This year the state confirmed the dangers of using university email for anything personal--including logging on to Facebook. The training noted how wrong it was for a university employee to log on to Facebook with his/her .edu email.

Many still do not know how this "misappropriation" of "state property" can be a ready excuse to ax employees, expel students, decertify student groups, etc. (Fortunately, my university has a "reasonable use" policy but I won't leave it up to a campus cyber czar to determine what is "reasonable"!).

I warned about this last year and this official state warning ought to be heeded. Search for all accounts using your .edu address -- or be busted. Advice to private sector workers: this applies to you too even if you aren't bound by a state ethics law. Pick up a computer magazine and see the advertisements for network "sniffing" software aimed at detecting illicit use of work email.

If you think I'm paranoid, well read some of the real-life examples from my past blog posts: here and here.

Sexual Harassment: "Trust us!"

2010-10-21T12:43:00.011-05:00

[FYI: There has been a long, heated debate over SIUC's sexual harassment policies and procedures. For a list of blog entries, click here ]

"Report Everything!" "Trust Us!" "Ignore the Procedures!"

Those three phrases sum up a sexual harassment workshop I attended in the College of Liberal Arts. Linda McCabe-Smith (Associate Chancellor of Diversity) and Deborah Nelson (Associate General Counsel) did most of the talking.

Disclosure: I have worked with Linda (on the Chancellor's Affirmative Action Advisory Committee); she is a professional with more common sense than most diversity officials. (Her office has also funded my travel to give presentations on black business history). However, the existing procedures place her (and us) "between a rock and a hard place." She acknowledged that the current procedures are "awful" and things would change under her watch. However, the procedures are still binding. The unions are bargaining and I would urge them to bargain hard for equitable procedures.

In short, we received the following counsel:

*"Report everything" (even if you think it is nothing): the presenters could have spent more time on threshold levels. True, it is up to them to decide cases based on legal standards (thresholds): sexual harassment must be "severe, persistent or pervasive" AND "substantially interferes" with the complainant's ability to work or learn. But the "report everything" mantra may backfire if people do not know (or appreciate) those standards. Individuals may be less likely to report if they think the threshold is so low that trivial things will end up destroying someone's career.

*Don't take the present procedures seriously because they will change (although they are still in effect!). Meanwhile . . .

*Trust us!

While I respect Smith's judgment, we need sensible procedures in place that "balance the rights" of the accuser and the accused. We cannot rely on the judgment of one person. Nelson used the term "balancing rights" throughout but her presentation was laden with "defensive lawyering": we must be firm to protect the University from lawsuits. The law requires policies and procedures but it doesn't require the kind that have caused so much trouble at SIUC.

The current procedures reflect a prosecutorial attitude: 98% of the relevant text is devoted to complainants: how to maintain the privacy (anonymity?) of complainants, advice to supervisors on using prosecutorial "tricks" to entrap the accused, and vague passing references to the rights of the accused (two murky sentences repeated throughout the "Resource Guides"!).

Does the respondent have the right to know the identity of the accuser, the specific charges, etc.? Past experience is rife with complaints by anonymous individuals, redacted reports, and a general policy of "keep the accused in the dark." Nelson stated that she would give "dates, times, names" to the accused. The question I will ask of her (and report back here): when? In a previous presentation before the Faculty Senate, Associate General Counsel Phylecia Cole presented her office's practice on divulging information to the accused. I summarized it in this passage (available in the above link):

Professors were a bit taken aback by the Powerpoint slide indicating that Legal Counsel would hand over documents to the accused IF A COURT ORDERED THEM TO DO SO. Otherwise, everything is secret. Look up "Star Chamber".

In other words, you have the right to know your accuser if you have the resources to sue us. On this point, see the following post by SIU law professor Leonard Gross: "The Right to Know Your Accuser."

There is a big difference between firm statements against sexual harassment and the present procedures which flagrantly ignore any rights of the accused. The 80 pages of procedures, available here offer 7 avenues for complainants to take against respondents. At all levels, those taking complaints should "express sympathy in a neutral manner." That is all to the good. But when it comes to the accused: "be prepared for anger, denials and defensiveness." The guide then offers ways to prosecute the accused in the initial interview:

“Be very specific about any admissions of certain behaviors . . .”

"If applicable, state that disciplinary action may include the employee’s discharge or student’s expulsion from the university” [squeezing respondent]

“Often discussing the behavior with the respondent, without labeling it as harassment will result in him/her admitting to it.” Gotcha! “Then, if appropriate, sexual harassment can be used to label the behavior and you can explain how it violates the University’s policy.” (BEFORE decision is rendered?!)

The charges may be "insufficient" to take action against the accused but fear not: you may find that "the behavior violated another policy, so disciplinary action is warranted.” This passage reminds me of the ever-shifting "extrajudicial reprisals" described by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in Gulag Archipelago (see his chapters on the perversion of the law).

and on it goes.

As for assembling a defense, the Resource Guides offer the following to the accused:

BEFORE A FINDING: two short sentences:

“Respondent may consult with an adviser to learn his/her available options”

Investigators “will afford the respondent a full opportunity to respond to the allegations.”

That's it! Contrast that with the detailed coaching complainants may receive: complaints may be oral (and thus change). The procedures state: "any oral complaint must later be put in writing.” But they allude to questioning the accused with only an oral complaint in hand. The accused, the procedures state, is likely to be emotional so why present anything in writing that might let him/her escape the prosecutors? Wink, wink, nod, nod.

AFTER THE SENTENCE:

”After a finding has been made and disciplinary action recommended, respondent may file a grievance in accordance with the applicable grievance procedure.”

While the advice and protection given to the complainant takes up many pages, the respondent may file a grievance. Where? Against whom? How?

These questions are for Associate Chancellor Smith and Counselor Nelson:

*Where does the "learning environment" begin and end?

*What information will be given to the accused? Will it be redacted? If so, what information will be redacted and why?

*Does the accused have a right to cross examine the accuser and other witnesses?

*What is the appeal process? The grievance procedure discusses faculty filing against the "administrative officer who made the initial decision"--what does that mean in the context of sexual harassment?

*SIU issues reports to state agencies on the number and type of sexual harassment cases. Are those available to the public at large?

*"False and malicious" complaints: is this the unicorn of sexual harassment cases? This threshold is almost impossible to prove. "False and malicious" is far harder to prove than frivolous -- frivolous is allowed! If this unicorn does appear on campus, the procedures state that “any complaint made falsely and/or maliciously will result in discipline to the complainant.” What is the process?

PLEASE BE SPECIFIC WITH REGARD TO ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS IN THE FINAL PROCEDURES!

This blog is not taking the side of the accused or the accuser. It is trying to "balance rights" (Nelson's phrase). We do not need to ask these questions on behalf of complainants because the procedures already answer them in great detail.

Trust is important. But it is not enough. As Ronald Reagan said: "trust but verify."

I urge the Faculty Senate and the unions to remain vigilant.

Update on Windmill Turbine: Taxpayer Money at Stake

2010-09-20T21:31:00.005-05:00

Ryan Klopf, Green Fund Committee Chairman, responded to my request for information on funding. Where was the Green Fund/SIU going to get millions of dollars if not from the government? His response suggests that the project is funded by the state and federal government. He emailed me:

[I'd] like to let you know that in addition to support from the green fund, the project has also obtained funding from the Illinois Clean Energy Foundation and the IL DCEO / US DOE / Recovery Act.

A few million dollars added to state and federal deficits will seem like pocket change to politicians accustomed to billions and trillions. It is time to remember, paraphrasing a quote attributed to the late Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL), "a million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."

News item from Klopf:

"The Wind Turbine Forum I mentioned in my previous email is on Tuesday, September 28 from 7PM - 9PM in the Student Center auditorium."

Wind Turbine: Blowing $ at the Wind?

2010-08-26T12:38:00.003-05:00

In a recent Daily Egyptian story, the "Green Fund" on campus, funded by a $10 student fee, boasted of a wind turbine that would cost $6 million and save $9 million for the university.

This story didn't pass the smell test on several counts:

First, the student fee raises $200,000 (approx.) per year. At that rate, it would take 30 years to accrue $6 million dollars.

Second, the "Green Fund" web site has no link that I could find to its "feasibility study." I emailed for more information but have yet to hear back from the Fund or the reporter who did the story.

I did find the following:

"Wind Power

In 2007 PSO began a study to determine the feasibility of constructing a wind power generation facility on campus. Preliminary performance estimates support a 2.5 megawatt turbine, which could reduce our main campus electric purchases from AmerenCIPS by 4%. This reduction amounts to an annual purchase offset of 3,547,800 kWh, saving nearly $225,000 per year in electrical cost at our current rates. Assuming that electric rates track inflation, the present value of the energy savings over the 30-year projected life of the turbine would be approximately $6,750,000."

Here the cost savings are not $9 million but $6.75 million over thirty years! Factor in inflation and the ROI (return on investment) is probably negative -- assuming that these forecasts are accurate.

Third, no one has asked the Jerry Maguire question: "Show me the money!"

Where is SIUC going to get $6 million? A long-term bond? Add the interest to the cost of this project. "Free" money from the federal government? When the federal government has NO money other than that it borrows from the Chinese or effectively prints?

So far, the SIU Green Fund has stuck with conservation and avoided the radicalization of other "Sustainability" programs. All to the good.

However, before the SIU Board of Trustees signs off on six million bond or federal grant, let's ask some hard questions about this project.

I'm happy to post the comments of any one involved with the Green Fund. Fire away!

University Posts Course Syllabi Online

2010-08-09T14:26:00.007-05:00

The Pope Center posts a column on how a North Carolina university is posting all course syllabi for students to review before choosing their courses.

Three years ago, I made the same recommendation in the Daily Egyptian and -whoa! -- the furious response: "Pandering to the peons" (students)! "This is one step closer to McCarthyism!" Sheesh. Posting syllabi online is proto-fascist? Get a grip.

Seems this common sense proposal is spreading -- and worth considering (again) here at Southern Illinois University. As a former academic adviser, this was one of those legitimate student complaints ("the course didn't match the catalog description!"). All I could recommend was trying to request syllabi (past or present) for a course. But you know if a professor (me) gets toasted for recommending it, imagine the fate of a freshman requesting "please, Professor, may I see the syllabus for the course?"

Post the syllabi with the proviso that it may be changed or updated at the discretion of the instructor. This isn't rocket science. It is good manners.

For professors, it is also a great rebuttal to unfounded student complaints that there is "too much reading" or "too much writing" (whine): "Hey, kid, you knew what you were signing up for when you read the syllabus. Now get to work!"

Billionaires Back Free Textbook Movement

2010-08-01T18:00:00.004-05:00

In 2009, I blogged on the budding movement for open-source and free textbooks coming on the market. The latter (commercially free) often hope to make money by charging for the printing of online texts.

The movement has moved ahead sluggishly with little financial support.

Enter two tech billionaires: the founders of Sun Microsystems--Scott McNealy and Vinod Khosia. They are devoting their philanthropy to replacing the $200 textbook with free alternatives AND getting these texts accredited by California and Texas, the two "gatekeepers" of the textbook publishing market (K-12).

Look for rapid movement at the K-12 level and some progress in the college textbook market. Whether the textbook oligopoly can block competition with political influence is another matter.

For more, see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/technology/01ping.html?src=busln

and

http://www.curriki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/WebHome

Supreme Court: No Privacy on State Phones, Computers, Email

2010-06-18T20:15:00.008-05:00

I blogged about a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision over at NASblog.org

Bringing a private laptop or wi-fi device to work (for private phone calls/emails) would be useless if your university (like mine) has a closed VPN -- software that allows you access to the institution's wireless.

Fortunately, most universities have some "Rule of Reason" but, as they used to say on Hill Street Blues:

"Hey, let's be careful out there!"

Race to the Bottom: SIU's "Historic" Dumbing Down of Education

2010-06-17T14:34:00.006-05:00

Today I read an amazing column on the front page of the Daily Egyptian. The thumbnail translation: "Academic standards? Are you crazy?! We have a 'historic' commitment to keeping standards low. We cannot turn away any one."

This "Race to the Bottom" (an inversion of Obama's "Race to the Top") is achieving its aim: more special admits who will never graduate from SIU-C. The Center for Academic Success (CAS) serves (at no small cost) 3% of the student body. Yet 60% of our entering freshmen will never graduate (IPEDs six-year graduation data). How is this compassionate?

If lowering standards was the key to increased enrollment, our classrooms would be packed. Those interviewed concede that enrollment has declined for ten years while it has increased at other schools. Yet they remain committed to cheating the ill-prepared of their money and the well-prepared of a rigorous education.

It is an open secret -- and Interim Provost Don Rice alludes to it -- that a SIU degree is losing its value. We are getting a "reputation" for accepting everyone. Every incoming chancellor wraps this sad fact in maintaining our "historic mission." It is reminiscent of those Party apparatchiks in the late 1980s who maintained that East Germany must maintain its mission. That worked out well.

"SIUC Chancellor Rita Cheng said students who may need a little encouragement and help, such as supplemental instruction and tutoring, can succeed at SIUC."

A "little"?! Those of us in the trenches are trying to teach a mix of students: half who need a lot of "remediation." The other half are deprived of a solid education. It is demoralizing.

Let's face facts: we need a "remedial track" with courses for the half that need a "little" help. How can we teach a class that contains students with an ACT of 14 -- the cut off for the remedial CAS?

CAS is a one-year program that begins by reviewing a student’s class rank and ACT score.

“I usually don’t take a student that has anything below a 14 ACT score,” Williams said.

I went to the ACT web site and looked up a composite score of 14. It places a student in the bottom ten percent of all test takers! In math, it places a student in the bottom 6%.

Who are we kidding? We feel good about our "mission" but this mantra reminds me of a book subtitled "Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy." If your policy keeps failing your institution, your clientele, your staff then self-congratulation is a grotesque joke played on all parties.

I will end by quoting from the opening lines of FDR's first inaugural address.

"This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today."

Let's stop "shrinking" from reality. After all, "reality is not optional."

Profile in Cowardice: Allah is Great! Die South Park Die!

2010-04-28T13:42:00.001-05:00

Crosspost from my Beacon blog:

http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=5924

Freedom from Bad Academic Writing

2010-04-25T11:29:00.007-05:00

The following column on George Orwell's advice to free students from bad academic writing is worth reading:

http://chronicle.com/article/Bad-WritingBad-Thinking/65031/?sid=ja&utm_source=ja&utm_medium=en

In two decades of teaching, I have worked with exceptionally bright undergraduates. Once they enter graduate school, however, they conform to the "smelly little orthodoxies" of theory and the jargon-ridden writing of their discipline. I've always despised jargon that deadens prose and will be passé by the time these young conformists hit old age. Future generations will have to decipher why words and phrases such as "subaltern," "post-structuralist," "late capitalism" meant to the scribbling class of early 21st century academics.

The advice Orwell gives is similar to advice Winston Churchill gave on good writing. This passage says it best (from Orwell, "Politics and the English Language"):

"Orwell leaves us with a list of simple rules:

* Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

* Never use a long word where a short one will do.

* If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

* Never use the passive where you can use the active.

* Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

* Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

I am posting this for my own students and as a reminder to myself (fallen creature that I am).

"The Grades are In": ACTA on SIU-Carbondale

2010-04-20T17:09:00.002-05:00

MODERATOR'S NOTE:

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) has written a report card rating colleges, including SIU-C. The energetic head of ACTA, Anne Neal, will be on campus this Thursday to talk about college affordability. Given the timely nature of this report and Neal's appearance on campus, I asked David Azerrad, Program Officer for ACTA to write a guest blog:

"The grades are in"

Professor Bean has been kind enough to invite the American Council of Trustees and Alumni to write a guest blog post to highlight the findings of our recent report card on public higher education in Illinois.

In the report card, we evaluated 10 public four-year universities, including SIU-Carbondale, and concluded that, on the whole, they find themselves on an unsustainable course.

Tuition and fees are spiraling out of control—they increased by an average of 56 percent during the five year period we surveyed. Graduation rates remain woefully low. No university requires the crucial subjects of economics and American history. Most don’t require college-level math either (SIU-Carbondale, to its credit, does). And significant numbers of students report an intellectual climate that is not conducive to a robust exchange of ideas—almost a third of students at UIUC and SIU-Carbondale report perceived pressure to agree with a professor’s social or political views in order to get a good grade in certain classes. On the whole, the picture that emerges is one in which costs continue to rise with no attending increase in academic quality.

We did note a couple of bright spots. All universities ensure students graduate having taken a composition class and most, including SIU-Carbondale, also have a natural science requirement. The state’s public universities have also rightly made instructional spending take precedence over administrative spending in their budgets.

Much, however, remains to be done to promote affordability.

On this note, readers may also be interested to note that ACTA president Anne D. Neal will be in Carbondale on Thursday to speak at the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute conference on college affordability.

The event is free and open to the public.

Lawsuit Walking: The Awful, Unlawful, Un-American harassment code

2010-04-09T16:06:00.005-05:00

Time has passed since the SIUC administration began to "reform" the university's (unl)awful sexual harassment policies and procedures. Days before a Board of Trustees meeting FIRE lawyer Azhar Majeed, based here in Illinois, contributed a useful guest column in the Daily Egyptian: "SIUC's sexual harassment policies badly need revision."

Those responsible for the current policies and procedures were put in charge of "gathering input" from various constituency groups. The result, if possible, is even worse than what we had before: forget due process and hand all discretionary power over to a single person! God Bless America!

It's sad. SIU has walked into needless lawsuits in the past. From my vantage point, the Board ought to consider whether these "new" procedures leave us a "Lawsuit Walking."

Tunnel of Oppression: Communist Theme Park

2010-03-24T22:29:00.003-05:00

On college campuses, the "student programmers" could use with a bit of anger management. On my campus there is the obligatory Vagina Monologues sticking to the script of the "angry vaginas" and other pleasant scenes.

My university is also part of the growing movement to "educate" through "Tunnels of Oppression."

Alas, benighted Lithuania hasn't caught up with U.S. "higher" education. They actually have a tunnel of oppression that deals with communism under Soviet rule. In the U.S. academy this is known as "historical communism" (to distinguish it from the Real Thing).

At any rate, those of us stuck in the "late stage of capitalism" are disadvantaged by our freedom, yet we may experience "historical communist oppression" through this Communist Theme Park (trip to Lithuania not included):

Communist Theme Park @ Yahoo! Video

A Tale of Two Campuses: How the DOUBLE Tuition Freeze Benefits SIU-E

2010-03-24T16:13:00.011-05:00

In the past week, SIU President Glenn Poshard announced a tuition freeze for next year's incoming freshmen. Concerned with the "rising cost of tuition," our distinguished state legislators passed a Truth in Tuition Act that already freezes the freshman tuition rate for a four year period. In other words, the price you pay in Year 1 is the same price you pay in Years 2, 3, 4.

One would think that the unreliability of state funding (which will be cut next year) would raise the risk premium on anything with a four-year maturity, including tuition. That's the way bond markets work, for example, but apparently risk is an economic variable not factored into the popular mantra of affordability. Indeed, SIU boasts that it leaves students with one of the lowest debt loads of any state university in the country (see below). It is difficult to see how much more "affordable" we can be unless we give college away for free.

SIU cited the following factoid from U.S. News & World Report:

"SIUC ranked 14th nationally in graduates who leave school with the least amount of debt. Thirty-seven percent of SIUC's grads are in debt when they graduate, with the average amount being $12,413."

To wit: We are giving college out for free to many students (although only 45% will graduate over six years). Pell and MAP grants cover the cost for "needy" students. This sounds like a good thing but it makes SIUC dependent on continued state funding of the MAP grant program, along with direct state subsidies. This year's MAP grant fiasco should have awakened Salukis to the reality that we need

*More paying students (not just those with money from the state)

*Higher tuition -- but the tuition freeze eliminates that option.

Bottom line:

*No state money

*MAP grant money is unreliable

*Tuition freeze = tuition cut (expect some inflation with a recovering economy--unless SIU is expecting four years of economic stagnation and zero inflation).

While folks at the Carbondale campus are desperate for funds, they are downright giddy about the tuition freeze at our ever-expanding Edwardsville campus. Here's why:

The Edwardsville campus tuition and fees = $8,336

The Carbondale campus tuition and fees = $10,411

In short, at the undergraduate level, SIU's two campuses are competing with each other and the freeze only enhances the Edwardsville advantage. Little wonder that their enrollment is booming while Carbondale's is in long-term decline. The above links suggest that SIU-E is far less dependent on students who need state grants. Their facilities are newer, they are close to an urban center -- AND they cost significantly less.

Perhaps I am missing something (?) but no one has ever pointed out the significant cost differential between the two campuses. Obviously, parents and students have figured it out; they are voting with their feet for SIU-E.

Census 2010: So Damn Complicated! (SNL skit)

2010-03-18T20:08:00.010-05:00

As you all know, this is Census 2010 and the government wants you to "get your fair share" of the money due you. I don't know why they are asking about my race, whether I own a house, have a mortgage, etc. but to bring some levity to this decennial PITA (pain the ass), here is a SNL skit I can't resist sharing with readers:

We folk in southern Illinois have to do a better job: Chicago counts dead people at election time, so why can't we "think outside the box"? This SNL skit provides some helpful advice.

FYI: One of the witty documents in my Race and Liberty in America book is by Ben Wattenberg, who listed himself as "Human." "So sue me," he writes. See http://raceandliberty.blogspot.com

Alas, no census boxes for Bobcats. . .

(Cougar would have been a better double-entendre. but I still enjoy SNL even when it isn't perfect. LOL).

PS: The best cameo by Christopher Walken has to be Fatboy Slim "Weapon of Choice."

Proposed Budget Cut = 15% layoffs at SIU

2010-03-03T17:32:00.003-06:00

Capitol Fax Blog reports that an across-the-board budget cut of 10% proposed by gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady would trigger mass layoffs at state universities. The Blog quoted SIU President Glenn Poshard:

"Glenn Poshard said such a cut would immediately trigger a 15 percent layoff across the SIU campuses, something he said is “not practical, prudent nor possible.”

State of Denial: Illinois is Going Bankrupt

2010-02-18T22:48:00.010-06:00

If bankrupts sounds extreme, read this widely-read blog. Things are so bad, the director of Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE) slammed the state for being "totally negligent."

Meanwhile, Chicago Tribune notes Illinois is dead last in funding its state pension system and "Illinois health care and other post-employment benefit programs are 0.19 percent funded. You read that right: 0.19 percent."

For those of us working at state universities, this means we also need to get out of our state of denial about how bad it is. Want to imagine how bad it is? Think of the final scene from Thelma and Louise

My own university needs to sound the alarm and announce possible steps of action that we can all take to make it through the crisis. The following steps are being taken elsewhere and merely suggesting them will be unpopular. If folks have other ideas, post 'em here.

FACULTY:

*Teach more courses: tenured faculty have a long-term commitment to SIU and need to demonstrate that commitment by teaching a heavier load, thus reducing the reliance on lecturers and adjuncts.

*Hiring freeze: total and utter freeze. If people retire or leave, and a department believes their position "must" be filled . . . WAIT. Far too often in past crises people have pressured for special dispensations. It may be "necessary" but first it is necessary for the institution as a whole to survive.

*Salary freeze

*Online education: SIUC lags far behind its peers in offering online courses. Here again tenure-track faculty ought to be leading, not following. Offer discounted tuition for off-campus summer courses or overload courses (above 15 credit hours) taken online.

ADMINISTRATION (and Board of Trustees):

*Raise tuition: the days of being the cheapskate college are over. The Truth in Tuition law should have raised the risk premium on tuition because it freezes incoming tuition for four years. The last tuition increase was laughably inadequate given the real risk of state neglect that we faced -- and are now enduring.

*Protect jobs: in return for teaching more credit hours, faculty ought to see it as a way of protecting their own jobs. Send the message that faculty cooperation will indeed result in greater job security.

STUDENTS:

In recent years, SIUC and state funding have left SIUC students with one of the lowest debt loads of any state university. This is unsustainable. The MAP grant crisis highlighted how much the state subsidizes higher education. You/we may not like higher tuition as an alternative but the State of Denial (Illinois) isn't a reliable partner.

That last point is something we all should have known. The level of denial -- even now -- is unbelievable. Let's do what it takes and hear leadership on what we all can do. The sooner we hear it from the administration and the unions, the sooner we leave Denial for good.

Breaking National News -- InsideHigherEd.com on SIU Sexual Harassment Code: "Rights of the Accused"

2010-02-12T11:09:00.001-06:00

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/02/12/siu

Fear Factory: Sexual Harassment "Reform"

2010-02-08T12:39:00.021-06:00

Are you an employer who would like to effectively police your workforce? Instill fear that any misstep (real or imagined) could lead to dismissal, removal from the workplace, or mandatory "sensitivity training"?

Don't waste money on some high-priced consultant. Simply go to the web site of your local university and look up "Sexual Harassment Policies and Procedures" (SHPP).

Voila! For the price of a brief web search you will find a workplace model that empowers you and self-polices the employees. The model features:

1. Vague definitions of harassment that have nothing to do with sex.

2. Self-policing: The university model turns all employees into informants. If they refuse to inform on a violation of the incomprehensible policy, then others can inform on these refuseniks.

3. You will have no shortage of informants: coworkers (or customers/students) can turn in others for frivolous reasons and never have their identity known to the accused.

4. Even better, trained police ("advisers") will coach accusers and write their complaints for them (apparently, those in college cannot write a simple report of events).

5. Finally, have your lawyers repeat (again and again) "this is required by law" (even if it really isn't).

Sound unreal?

Welcome to Sexual Harassment "Reform" at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. In today's Daily Egyptian, the front page story is "Sexual harassment training begins, questions remain."

Questions indeed!

To bring readers up to speed, I am providing a select list of links on the issue (see below). The "sexual" in harassment is really lipstick on a pig: often the charge has to do with speech that makes someone uncomfortable or allegedly creates a "hostile environment." Like the drag show recently held on campus, the dressing covers what is beneath: in this case, "sexual harassment" is a speech code in drag.

As a recap, here is a Hit Parade of SIU-related links on sexual harassment, free speech, and due process:

This link sums up criticisms of the Code being shoved on faculty, staff and students:

Sexual Harassment Procedures: You Have the Right to ... (mumble mumble)

"The Right to Know Your Accuser" (Leonard Gross)

Professor Gross's entry got the most "hits" of any FreeU entry. It shocks people to know that you have NO right to know your accuser.

Lest any one think that there are only a few victims of harassment codes, they may peruse the full list of FreeU posts:

http://freesiu.blogspot.com/search?q=sexual+harassment

The Sexual Harassment Establishment (S.H.E.) would have you believe that this is a tempest in a teapot. "Mistakes were made" with the John Y. Simon case but that was the exception, S.H.E. says.

Fact check: the guilty-until-innocent abuses have such a long history here that two prior blue-ribbon panels urged real reform.

Phil Howze, one of the courageous voices of reason here at SIUC, said in today's newspaper: "never again" should individuals be deprived of due process and of their dignity based on a rigged system.

An objective observer viewing the "massive resistance" to reform would change the university slogan to "See you next time." When next time comes, it won't be pretty.

Salukis deserve better.

PS: The campus unions were to bargain the procedures but they have been silent as a tomb. I'd love to hear their perspective and what they plan to do. As a Faculty Association member, I'm beginning to wonder if my dues money is well spent. Convince me that it is.

Light a Candle: For-profit alliances, Online Learning

2010-02-06T09:10:00.013-06:00

As everyone knows, state funding of higher education is notoriously unreliable. After a nationwide surge in direct spending to universities (the boom), the bust has arrived. Big surprise.

While direct appropriations to state universities have foundered, the state and federal money spent on students has increased. This follows public choice theory: politicians spend money to gain the greatest number of votes. There are far more students (and their parents) who vote than there are institutions who want government money.

This is good for those students who use the money wisely and it is good for "school choice": Unlike K-12, students can choose their state college or university. Universities with declining enrollments moan and groan when students head to their competitors. To wit: my own university consists of two campuses: one with skyrocketing enrollment, the other in perpetual decline.

No doubt the news for those wedded to the status quo is bad. Nevertheless, recent trends in nontraditional education have taken off during this crisis. Even before the fiscal bust, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and many others noted that colleges had gotten flabby--not with money but with their way of delivering education in the 21st century.

Campuses facing fiscal difficulty need to get aggressive with educational innovation. Online learning is up (again). Philanthropist Bill Gates is expressing interest in putting his money into improving online education. For the first time, I am using a free online textbook funded by the federal government and distinguished foundations.

Institutions with enrollment and/or funding shortfalls are turning to for-profit alliances. One of the biggest surprises: the National Labor College has formed a for-profit joint venture that retains faculty unionization (NLC is dedicated to promoting unionism). "Bread-and-butter" union faculty ought to take notice: Change or die.

Here's to a new year hoping that my own institution (Southern Illinois University) starts lighting candles rather than cursing the darkness.

University finds free online classes don't hurt enrollment

2010-02-03T14:12:00.002-06:00

"University finds free online classes don't hurt enrollment"

Actually, there is a lot more research on this topic. For more, see a presentation by SIUC's own Professor Mark Kittleson(Health Education). His meta-analysis debunks the notion that online education is less rigorous than “face-to-face” education. In fact, his cross discipline studies show that online education outperforms face-to-face based on measurable test results. My own experience corroborates this finding.

At a 2009 conference, Kittleson delivered a talk on the advantages of online education. The abridged video is available online: Go to http://tinyurl.com/yar6ktn for WMV (PC) format or http://tinyurl.com/yfzc7he for MP4 (Apple). I abridged because the first 15 minutes was taken up with Kittleson receiving an award for being a leader in his field.

Faculty Layoffs: Who and When?

2010-01-29T20:25:00.005-06:00

A quick Google search of "university faculty layoffs" (without the quotation marks) reveals many recent news stories on state universities terminating faculty and staff.

For those who want to know the typical scenario, there are standards set by the AAUP, the American Council on Education, and legal precedent ("protected classes," including those over age 40 have special consideration under the law).

The best guide I found was from the American Council on Education.

The following is a typical situation explaining who is most likely to be laid off and in what order. This layoff procedure is from Wayne State (where a previous SIUC provost went) and fairly typical of unionized colleges: http://www.aaupaft.org/contracts/art10.html

"A. Faculty Layoffs

1. Normally, part-time faculty will be laid off first followed by lecturers. In unusual circumstances when special experience is essential to the unit, a full-time or fractional-time faculty member may be laid off, while the part-time faculty member is retained. If the budgetary constraints prove it impossible to staff the range of courses with the full-time and/or fractional-time faculty, then the full-time and fractional-time faculty may be offered the opportunity to teach the courses on an overload basis without additional compensation rather than to use part-time faculty during the academic year.

2. Additional faculty layoffs shall occur in the following order: (a) non-tenure-track faculty by rank and (within rank) by length of service at the University, (b) untenured faculty on tenure track by rank and (within rank) by length of service at the University, (c) tenured faculty by rank and (within rank) by length of service at the University. For purposes of this paragraph, untenured lecturers and senior lecturers with more than seven years service shall be treated as tenured faculty."

Life is not simple when it comes to layoffs, particularly when tenure and unions are involved. The wise faculty member will consult their union representative (if they have a union), read their state education labor law, and do what I have done--consult with a lawyer.

"Hope for the best, plan for the worst" is the motto for these times.

High School Reform: What Smart Students Want (and Need)

2010-01-12T10:14:00.003-06:00

Crosspost from my NASBlog: click below

High School Reform: What Smart Students Want (and Need)

Colleges as "Attendance Centers": Why So Many Students Never Graduate

2010-01-02T18:14:00.003-06:00

Several years ago, I chuckled when I dropped my young daughter off at a friend's elementary school. In fact, the school was named an "Attendance Center." I never learned why "school" was suddenly out of fashion.

How apt a phrase for what is happening in higher education, as every politician and president (Bush and Obama included) promise "more, more, more!"

A new book is getting acclaim for documenting how simply funding more college "attendees" is a waste of money: Jackson Toby, The Lowering of Higher Education in America: Why Financial Aid Should be Based on Student Performance. Toby hammers home the message that always shocks people when I tell them that most of those who go to college will never graduate with a degree. Moreover, mere "attendance" at a college does little to improve earnings and leaves many in debt.

The situation is even worse at community colleges, where politicians at the state and national levels are heavily subsidizing two-year college education. By accepting all, the old whip of "working hard in high school" to "get into college" is gone--every K-12 student knows they can go to college whether they prepare themselves or not.

The following excerpt from an article on the abysmal state of community college "attendance centers" highlights how much worse the problem is at that level:

"A cursory look at the data is not encouraging. Although 41 percent of America's college-bound students enter community colleges each year , only 28 percent of this cohort actually complete their studies and earn a degree , an even more dismal outcome than that displayed at the nation's baccalaureate colleges, where 56 percent manage to graduate . These depressing statistics haven't dampened the general consensus favoring support of community colleges because proponents appear to believe that college "access" trumps successful college completion and that "some college is better than none." Refuting the latter point, U.S. community college non-graduates have only marginally higher earnings and lower unemployment rates than high school graduates and do far less well than their counterparts that manage to complete their studies.

The disappointing outcomes at community colleges are to some extent hard-wired into four aspects of their design. These institutions are proudly and aggressively "open admissions" which means that there are no academic criteria to get in except, in most places, a high school diploma. . . ."

Readers interested in learning the graduation rates (and other vital statistics) of any college in America can find it at http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/

Will financial aid be tied to merit rather than a free lunch for everyone, regardless of performance? The political incentives work against any such reform. After all, the citizens of Entitlement U.S.A. believe it is their unalienable right to a discounted (or free) college education. Furthermore, politicians count votes and "something for nothing" is always popular. On we go . . .

Is Scandal Inevitable when Scientists Become Activists?

2009-12-18T17:51:00.000-06:00

Crosspost from a new blog on science policy by SIU graduate Alex Berezow, http://blindsciencepolicy.blogspot.com/

Was ClimateGate inevitable? Moreover, with all the negative attention given to corporate-funded research (supposed conflict of interest), what about government-funded research? If you research global warming and conclude there is no (or little) problem, how much will the government throw at a problem that doesn't exist? On the other hand, if your research scares the bejesus out of government officials (and the public), how much will various government spend?

To paraphrase Carl Sagan, "billions and billions . . . “

Climate Conspiracy: U.K., U.S. "ClimateGates" Call into Question Peer Review, Politics

2009-11-23T14:02:00.003-06:00

My friends at NAS.org have posted on the “Climate Conspiracy” that broke when hackers revealed global warming scientists had apparently manipulated data, organized attacks on skeptics, and much more. Surprise, surprise.

The timing couldn’t be worse for those who would cripple economies with the plaintive cry: “Do as we say or we all die!” Worldwide there is growing skepticism about the benefits of micromanaging every aspect of daily life while measuring “carbon footprints.” The Wall Street Journal even contributed to this Nanny Project with a long piece measuring the carbon footprint of various common products. I was relieved to see that beer had the lowest carbon footprint.

How far have we gone when we decide whether or not it is “good for the planet” to drink beer? Now we must ask: Did German scientists manipulate the beer data to preserve their national beverage? (I'm kidding). It's a good cause(beer drinking) but who studies this stuff? And when is enough enough?

To read more, click here.

Student Blogs: Speaking Truth to Pooh-bahs

2009-11-09T18:03:00.002-06:00

In a previous post, I noted how military bloggers are writing the "first pages of history." Likewise, student bloggers are offering a place to speak out against the abuses on their campuses: from official racial segregation (in the name of Diversity) to expulsion for being pro-life and much more.

During the 1990s, many upscale universities had students who said "Enough!" and established newspapers to advocate for academic freedom, mock the Mickey Mouse courses taught on campus, and generally play the role of watchdog. Needless to say, those newspapers were not welcomed by administrators or the PC thugs who "police" what happens on campus. Blessed by administrators who looked the other way, the thugs stole newspapers en masse and otherwise bullied these reporters in a style worthy of the Ku Klux Klan.

Flash forward ten years: the Internet offers students, alumni and faculty the opportunity to watch and report on the crazy shenanigans of those in power and those who feel empowered to act as foot soldiers in the "long march through the institutions" that has done so much damage to academic rigor and freedom.

(Disclosure: I have my own blog, FreeU, focusing primarily on Illinois issues).

Here I'd like to profile one excellent student blog: ClaremontConservative.com

(The blogroll includes many alternative blogs by students, alumni, community members from Left to Right and "just for fun").

Issues of interest to academic readers include the following:

*Thought reform

*Expulsion for the "wrong" views

*Racial segregation promoted by the administration.

The military bloggers have a central directory; perhaps it is time to gather a EDUblogging directory? Meanwhile, search and you will find someone blogging about your campus, whether the pooh-bahs approve or not.

Postscript: Alumni need to get into the act. They have nothing to fear--and administrators sometimes listen to them. Using the web, I got alumni at my alma mater to pressure the administration and get rid of a mandatory "white guilt" seminar for freshmen.

Will Layoffs be based on Diversity?

2009-10-15T16:43:00.001-05:00

In recent weeks, the USA Today and National Public Radio have crowed that this recession is different: most of those losing jobs were men (and predominantly white). This is “encouraging” according to these news outlets.

Why is it good? Because a majority of the workforce is now made up of women; and blacks have not been hurt as much as whites (the media seem to have forgotten about Asians and Hispanics but what else is new?). This is an advance in gender, if not racial, diversity. Whooo. One wonders how those women married to unemployed men think about their gender’s “advance.”

Is this recession different? We won’t know until later but with “diversity accomplishments” now part of our academic job descriptions, there is reason to think that we may be evaluated accordingly when (or if) layoffs occur. After all, what better way to “diversify” the faculty than to adopt the slogan:

“First thing we do, fire all the white males!”

Employers are fearful of employment-related lawsuits and this is the first recession to seriously threaten academic jobs since 1982. The Diversity Machine has grown enormously since 1982, when it was only a glimmer in the eyes of campus social engineers. Today it is an industry that influences accreditation bodies, professional associations, and university practices (think of the money set aside for “diversity hires”).

If universities can make diversity hires, why not make the same decision when firing people?

Time to dust off your computer screen and search for labor relations law in your state. Those of us with unions ought to contact them too if the proverbial four-letter word “hits the fan.”

“I am Woman”: Sharia is OK with Me

2009-10-13T13:06:00.003-05:00

[Crossposted from http://nasblog.org/2009/10/13/i-am-woman-sharia-is-ok-with-me/ NOTE: The original post has links to the video, transcript and other relevant material]

Surprise, surprise: multicultural dogma and concern for “the Other” have seeped from college campuses to the highest corridors of power (again).

To wit: The first veiled female appointee in the White House, Dalia Mogahed, member of the Presidential Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Mogahed recently appeared on an Islamic television show in the UK touting her Gallup poll purporting to show that women are OK with sharia. Westerners just don’t get it, she says:

“the majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance. Whereas only a small fraction associated oppression of women with compliance with the shari`ah.”**

For the transcript, click here. There was little news coverage, except for this British article.

Imagine if a president appointed a strict Christian adviser who stated: “gender justice means obeying the Bible and church rulings on it.” Can you imagine the uproar?

The key point: Christians are not “the Other.” The dominant or majority group is held to a different standard. “Others” get a pass because “it’s an ‘Other thing,’ you just wouldn’t understand.”

Where is Western-style feminism when you need it? We don’t lack for Women’s Studies Departments that issue secular fatwas when they feel the pea of oppression through their seats in the Ivory Tower. Surely, they have something to say about treatment of women in Muslim countries? Alas, we must seek out a Yemeni feminist to criticize the appointment of Dalia Mogahed.

I can hear the comebacks: feminist critics of sharia are a minority (the abolitionists were a minority too). Or: “those uppity women need to read Dalia’s surveys and tighten their hijabs!”

**For Mogahed’s puffed-up survey results, go to “Who Speaks for Islam?” For criticism of Gallup “spin” see Jihadwatch More to the point, read the conditions under which pollsters labor in Muslim countries, given the many restrictions on women and the watching eye of government and family. Do these restrictions lend themselves to representative opinion surveys?

Postscript: Apologies to Helen Reddy: “I am Woman” is the title of her best-selling song (1972). Reddy did not have sharia on her mind.

Freedom from Fear: Crime and the Diversity Hustle

2009-10-01T17:17:00.006-05:00

[This is a crosspost from http://nasblog.org As an officer of the National Association of Scholars, and president of the Illinois affiliate, they asked me to become a regular contributor to the national blog. NAS is committed to academic excellence, freedom, and restoration of common sense in higher education. No small task. If interested in joining, email me at jonjbean@gmail.com]

By now, most Americans have watched the newscast on the brutal killing of Chicago honors student Derrion Albert.

FDR made "freedom from fear" one of his Four Freedoms. Many Chicago students flee to my rural university to secure "freedom from fear." They escape gang violence and the prospect of ending up in jail. They are the Derrion Alberts of the world--kids who want to start over.

Alas, college administrators--in the name of "diversity"--promote gang magnet events such as our Player's Ball: a fraternity-sponsored event with "pimps," "hoes," and "bitches."

Guilty white administrators cave to demands for "urban culture." After all, "it's a black thing." Diversity officials remain silent (privately, they do not approve but "what are we going to do?").

The same administrators ban credit card vendors on campus, squelch "hate speech" (a term never applied in this context) but will not lift a finger to "do the right thing." At the very least, campus officials could use their bully pulpit and authority to criticize these events.

One of my former students escaped his gang, became an honors student and attended the "Ball" in his second year. At the Ball, gang members searched him out and put a "hit" on his head for leaving them. Several of us found a way to relocate him but ultimately this student left for another university.

That is not education, it is exodus.

Since administrators and diversity deans do nothing, say nothing, hear nothing, I call them out: "Shame on you!"

Derrion Albert could have been one of my students, if he lived to attend college. For the Derrions of the world, those of us who teach or lead need to speak up.

R.I.P. Derrion Albert

Sexual Harassment Procedures: You Have the Right to . . . (mumble mumble)

2009-09-25T18:43:00.030-05:00

Everyone knows the famous Miranda decision requiring the accused to be informed of their rights. This decision became one of the keystones of modern liberal due process. If the accused is not informed of their rights, a police state may run rough shod over those alleged to have committed crimes.

Forget Miranda and all that "innocent before guilty" nonsense. Welcome to the wonderful new world of "Sexual Harassment Procedures." In the latest phase of obfuscating the rights of the accused, Southern Illinois University has produced a "Working Draft" entitled "Sexual Harassment Complaint and Investigation Procedures." Since this is "comment period," here are my criticisms of the Not-So-New Procedures. For a full history of the events leading up to this point, read the following provocative posts:

http://freesiu.blogspot.com/search/label/sexual%20harassment
The one by law professor Leonard Gross is relevant here.

The criticisms that follow apply not only to Southern Illinois University Carbondale but to many (most?) college campuses. Hence the need for groups like FIRE, NAS, and certain ACLU chapters.

Silver Lining in SIU Procedures Draft:

The SIUC draft streamlines the harassment procedures by channeling everything through an "Associate Chancellor." Got to give them credit for efficiency. This might help reduce the odds of double jeopardy.

Devilish Details:

Let us move on to find the "devil in the details." A rigorous analysis of the draft uncovers

*the "guilty before innocent" principle,
*extreme preemptive action,
*vagueness concerning the "rights of the accused."

The rights of the accuser are spelled out in great detail but when it comes to the accused ("Respondent") we find "not so much" information. If you accept the procedures at Guantanamo Bay, you'll love the approach taken here.

The Procedures state that the accuser:

"should include as much relevant information as possible, such as the name of the alleged victim, the name of the individual who allegedly violated the Policy (hereinafter “Respondent”), and a factual description of the incident(s) (including dates, times, places, and the names of any witnesses)."

This sounds good: full and complete information so that the accused might respond without being left in the dark, as has been documented in past horror cases at SIUC. But will this "full and complete" information be relayed in full to the accused? There are reasons to doubt anything has changed based on the following:

Verbal complaints allowed with no explanation of transcription process:

"Individuals are encouraged to make complaints in writing; however, written complaints are not required. Consistent with the University’s obligation to investigate complaints, and to the extent permitted by law, these records will be kept confidential."

Recommended Revision 1:

The procedures need to clearly state WHO and HOW verbal complaints will be recorded. There are always problems with oral statements, particularly when they can be changed, the person can be "coached," etc. Does any one recall the Duke Lacrosse fiasco and the harm that did to Duke University? I recommend that all verbal complaints be taped (precedent for this with Judicial Affairs) and taken down in writing so that the accused may respond in his/her defense.

Recommended Revision 2:

Make clear that "confidential" does not mean "anonymous" accusations. Later in the document there is talk of redacting and providing only "relevant" information. This places the accused in a terrible position of not knowing WHO is accusing them, who is an alleged witness, etc.

Destroy Reputation, Finish Investigation Later:

"if the Associate Chancellor finds it necessary to ensure compliance with applicable laws and/or University policies, he or she . . . may place the Respondent [accused] on temporary paid administrative leave, or otherwise temporarily bar such individual from campus pending the investigation . . . ."

Whoa! These preemptive strikes can devastate a person's reputation, even if the facts are later found to be "insufficient" (you are never declared "innocent," the facts are just "insufficient" to bear the charge!). Why do the Procedures jump to the "nuclear option" without offering milder, sensible alternatives such as a "restraining (or no-contact) order?" One reason, I suspect, is that a restraining order is impossible if the accused is kept in the dark as to WHO is accusing them!

Recommended Revision 1:

Lay out something short of an action that will destroy a person's reputation before there is a finding.

Recommended Revision 2:

Spell out that such drastic action will only be taken if the person constitutes a "clear and present danger" (or similar language).

Confidential Report: what does that mean?:

"Upon completion of the investigation, the investigator(s) shall prepare a confidential report of the findings and any recommendations, to the Associate Chancellor."

Again, does confidential mean that this report will not be made available to the accused? As I recall, this issue came up in the John Y. Simon case and incidents on other campuses.

False Reporting

This is the only mention of "false reporting":

"disciplinary proceedings shall be conducted for violations of the Sexual Harassment Policy (including sexual harassment, retaliation, and false reporting)."

No definition of "false," no recourse for the accused, no consequences for frivolous or false reports, no reasonableness standard. Nothing, nade, zip. Accuse all you want because these procedures give the accused no recourse. The feminist upholders of sexual harassment justice will assert that "false reports" are "rare" and of no concern. Surely, however, they do occur and these procedures, by providing no recourse, only encourage false reporting.

Recommended Revision:

Define false reporting, lay out procedures for the accused to file a countercomplaint.

Rights of the Respondent:

"1. To be informed of the allegations against him or her in a manner that will provide the Respondent an opportunity to respond;" (italics added).

Does "in a manner" mean full and complete disclosure of the complaint, investigation report, testimony of witnesses, etc.? It suggests something less than full disclosure.

Later in the report (p. 8), the draft states the Associate Chancellor will protect "the privacy of the alleged victim and witnesses" (does that mean they will not be revealed to the accused?). Privacy and anonymity are two very different things. The former keeps the process private within the confines of the university, the latter prevents the accused from knowing WHO is accusing them and who is witnessing against them.

On p. 8 there is further discussion of "redacted reports, documents and other materials germane to the investigation." What will be redacted? This needs to be spelled out. If the names of the accuser, witnesses, etc. are redacted (the anonymity issue), then I am totally opposed to this illiberal proposal.

Disclosure to Third Parties:

"Any documents . . . shall not be disclosed to any third parties, unless required by law." Translation: creating a leak-proof university? This became an issue at SIUC when one person allegedly provided information to a lawyer who then took action against the university. Does the above language prevent either party from disclosing documents to legal counsel in preparation for possible legal action? Or is this the ultimate CYA or shield clause for the university to hide its dirty laundry?

The irony is rich: our campus, like so many others, has witnessed criticism of George W. Bush, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay procedures on the grounds that due process is lacking and the government shields itself from scrutiny. Yet here we are with procedures that bear an eerie resemblance to the Bush-era action.

Recommended Revision:

The accuser must provide a complaint (to investigators) with names, dates, and witnesses. Why not simply state that the respondent has "the right to know his/her accuser," and a right to read the charges against him/her in full? We will hear the usual feminist objections that accusers won't be forthcoming if they know the accused will know them and their charges. But this is serious business when a person's life is at stake. Sexual harassment can harm the accuser but it can also have terrible consequences for the accused. Again, the incentives are structured to create an uneven field between the accuser and the accused.

Rights of the Respondent: Privacy

"the privacy of the Respondent will be maintained." But what of those barred from campus? How can we square privacy with an action that clearly marks them with a Scarlet S (for sexual harasser)?

Public Reporting::

"The Associate Chancellor shall, at the end of each fiscal year, provide the number of complaints and the disposition of such complaints to the Chancellor and the offices of the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the Illinois Board of Higher Education, pursuant to State statute."

Will this information be public record? If so, where would one find it? If not, why not?

Investigators and Panelists (judges):

There are procedures to make up a pool of investigators and panelists from "constituency groups."

Recommended Revision:

Information personnel (sexual harassment advisers) are available to both sides and should not be eligible to investigate or serve as members of appeals panels. There is a conflict of interest between their role as impartial advisers and judges.

Before signing off, this post is more than "pissing in the wind." It often seems that the Harassment Establishment will engage in rituals nodding to due process while letting the substance dribble away in opaque "procedures." Those who criticize the status quo are labeled (with some accuracy) PITAs (Pains in the Ass).

I take comfort in that I have offered not only criticism but suggested improvements to the draft.

I also take comfort in what George Orwell, one of history's great PITAs, wrote:

"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

Military Blogs: The First Pages of History

2009-09-16T19:28:00.001-05:00

A crosspost from my policy blog deals with military blogging, something I stumbled on while teaching online courses:

"Military Blogs: The First Pages of History."

Low Graduation Rates: Are We Admitting Too Many Students?

2009-09-14T09:50:00.002-05:00

Labor economist Richard Vedder has a provocative article discussing the waste and heartbreak associated with low graduation rates (my own university has a six-year graduation rate of 40% for incoming freshmen, not unusual and much higher than some other Illinois universities).

Vedder suggests that low graduation rates, coupled with underemployment of so many college graduates, translates into a society madly shoving students to go to college "or else" their lives will be miserable. Perhaps we need to rethink that proposition, not a popular one when colleges are desperately trying to scoop up any warm bodies to "stay alive" during these hard times.

"Sustainability is a Waste: 10 Reasons to Oppose the Sustainability Movement on Your Campus"

2009-09-03T15:04:00.005-05:00

The above link relates to issues I raised with the Sustainability Scam back in November 2008. See also "Plants Have Rights Too!"

Even in hard times, gullible people are willing to give up their money and their freedom to a radical movement that is "anti-rational." Let's stop the waste of money on "third circle" projects (see my link above) and devote it to students, books and learning.

FreeU

Administrative Bloat: "The Coming Assault"

Thumbs Up to DE: Coverage of Crime Investigation Makes Front Page

SIU Strike: The Movie is Out

Crime? What Crime?

Professor Publius: FA Contract a Real Loser (Chart)

FSN: Should You Sign the Petition? An Exchange between Seltzer and Eichholz

Why I Voted "No" to a Strike

Remember the "Almost" Strike of 2003?

FSN Petition Drive: Confidentiality of "Cards and Petitions"

Emeritus Faculty Organization to Fight for Freedom

Sue Your Law School! They Gave You the Degree

Pension Cutters: They are Back!

FYI: Decertification and Local Only Teacher Unions

Happy Songs for the Strike Vote Blues

Why I Will Vote "No" to a Strike (Part II)

OPEN FORUM: What Do Students Think of a Strike?

Why I am Voting "No" to a Strike (Part I)

Replacement Workers during a SIUC Faculty Strike

Seeking Success: Any Faculty Strike Victories of Late?

NEWS FLASH: Strike Fund Loan Details!!

COBRA Health Insurance Costs: Here are the Numbers

Strike Fund? Questions About IEA Loans

*UPDATED* Youngstown Univ. Strike: Situation to Monitor as SIU Faculty Consider Strike

What Happens When Faculty Strike? The Case of Northeastern Illinois (2004)

Mayor Emanuel versus Chicago Teacher Union

Books That Make Us Human: My Top Ten List

Enrollment Numbers: SIUE, U of I Hit Record Highs, SIUC Sings the Blues

New Firing Line: Sexual Harassment as Excuse to Fire Faculty

Strikes and Alternatives: What About Binding Arbitration?

REMINDER: Do Not Use .EDU Email for Anything Political

Coming Student Loan Crisis: Crony Capitalism + Egalitarian Liberalism

J'accuse! Feds "Discourage" Due Process

Feds Gut Due Process in "Sexual Harassment" Cases

23% of High School Graduates Ready for College (Illinois)

FORUM: "The Future of Faculty Unions"

Ninite: One-Click Batch Install and Update Your Programs!

Court Victory for Health Insurance Carriers

"Administrative Bloat": Irascible Professor Blog

AFSCME: Quinn "even lower" than Governor Walker

State High Courts: Pension COLAs Can Be Cut Despite Constitution

Rahm Emanuel Knows How to Handle Unions!

By the Numbers: What's Your Major Worth?

Health Alliance Update: House Votes 98-15 to Restore the HMO, Kabosh Quinn's Change to Health Care

Civic Committee and Pension Reform: Membership includes . . .

SB 512 Seems Dead until Fall!

CARTOON VIDEO: "What About Bob? Pension Talk with Michelle Obama in 2035"

Who is Behind Illinois Pension Reform? Hint: Rahm Emanuel would be very happy

Health Alliance Update! Senate votes to block Quinn's cancellation of Health Alliance

On the Lighter Side (Sort of): SIUC will have 64,000 students!

What About Bob? Pension Talk in 2035

PENSION UPDATE: Hug Your Local Legislator!

Here Comes the Pension Bill: Devilish Details, Part I

URGENT [EDITED]: Springfield pols out to Clean your Pension Clock: Read Amended SB 512

Making Sense of Pension Reform: Defined Benefit versus Self-Managed Plans

Health Alliance: UPDATE!

Pension Reform for all but Judges: Craven Effort to Buy Judicial Favor?

Quote of the Week: Glenn Poshard's One Liner Defending Our Pensions

I'd Rather Be in Wisconsin: Illinois Democratic Leadership Attacks Pension -- Bye, Bye Constitution

“O(h no) Canada!” MTV Signature Song Banned

Libertarian Defends Professor Cronon (while blasting the hypocrisy of the Left)

"Last and final offer": Full Text

They're Mad as Hell: Grad Students Face Job Market

Be Patriotic! Cheat! Spend!

He's Back! Bill Ayers, Robert Kennedy's Son -- and What this Has to Do With "Higher" Education

Portable Software: Better than Ever

Yes, Virginia . . . You are All Right

Facebook and U: The Dangers of University Email

Sexual Harassment: "Trust us!"

Update on Windmill Turbine: Taxpayer Money at Stake

Wind Turbine: Blowing $ at the Wind?

University Posts Course Syllabi Online

Billionaires Back Free Textbook Movement

Supreme Court: No Privacy on State Phones, Computers, Email

Race to the Bottom: SIU's "Historic" Dumbing Down of Education

Profile in Cowardice: Allah is Great! Die South Park Die!

Freedom from Bad Academic Writing

"The Grades are In": ACTA on SIU-Carbondale

Lawsuit Walking: The Awful, Unlawful, Un-American harassment code

Tunnel of Oppression: Communist Theme Park

UPDATED Youngstown Univ. Strike: Situation to Monitor as SIU Faculty Consider Strike

Breaking National News -- InsideHigherEd.com on SIU Sexual Harassment Code: "Rights of the Accused"