CBN Cites My Research; Southern Poverty Law Center Outed for Racketeering

CBN cites my research in connection with a case involving a politicized classroom at Towson University.  I'm wondering how the president's recent executive order will affect blatant violations of Section 501(c)(3) such as this one.  Sam Abrams recounts parallel violations by the administration of Sarah Lawrence College in a New York Times  article last October.  The college's blatant use of its assets for political advocacy should disqualify its tax exemption.  We have yet to see a meaningful action along these lines.  It may turn out that any college with a diversity office has run afoul of the tax code.

Also along related lines, in November 2016 the president of Brooklyn College, Michelle J. Anderson, quoted the Southern Poverty Law Center vis-a-vis on-campus activities of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.  In my inimitable way, I wrote the president that the SPLC was as bigoted as any hate group.  President Anderson is not alone in quoting the fake claims of the SPLC.  They have been quoted in virtually every major media source. For example, I did a search on "Southern Poverty Law Center" in the New York Times digital archives through 2013 and found 2,222 hits.  I suspect 100% of the references were positive or implied that the SPLC was a reliable source. As usual, the media has gotten things dead wrong.

On March 19 Rich Lowry revealed in the New York Post that the SPLC has turned out to have been a racketeering organization that engaged in racial and gender discrimination internally and relied on fake commitment to political correctness to profit Morris Dees and his colleagues by using the threat of law suits and bad publicity as an extortion device. In effect, the Times and virtually all other Democratic Party-linked media were quoting the equivalent of Bernie Madoff or John Gotti on the subject of social justice--not once or twice, but thousands of times.  Lowry writes of the SPLC:


It used the complicity or credulousness of the media in repeating its designations to punish its ideological enemies and engage in prodigious fundraising. It raised $50 million a year and built an endowment of more than $300 million.

Imagine a left-wing outfit with the same shoddy standards as Sen. Joe McCarthy but with a better business sense.

Clear-eyed, fair-minded people on the left have long recognized the SPLC as a fundraising tool masquerading as a civil rights group, but its absurd overreach has in recent years earned skeptical coverage from the likes of The ­Atlantic and PBS.

I'm increasingly wondering about the sources of the incompetence of the media. One question is whether the anti-trust laws ought to be reinvented to apply to both print and electronic media. Another is whether the indoctrination on offer in American colleges are key to understanding the journalistic failures of CNN, the New York Daily News, and Inside Higher Education.

Left-Wing Hate Speech Toward Mitchell Langbert's Blog I

I have previously discussed the decline in campus civility in light of increasing left-wing hate, intolerance, calls for censorship and repeal of the First Amendment.  The bizarre combination of millennials' often-violent protest against others and their often-self-pitying anxiety about their own feelings has been discussed by Lukianoff and Haidt in their recent book Coddling of the American Mind.   

Many millennials lack writing, mathematical, and linear thinking skills. Most lack civics and history education. Few have read the classics of the liberal tradition--Locke, Montesquieu, Hume, Smith, Mill.   As a result, a majority is unfamiliar with the origins of the First Amendment, the history of speech codes in early modernity, or of the use of speech codes by Joseph McCarthy and Alexander Mitchell Palmer. As well, they often lack an understanding of how the US government works and what the Constitution says.  The same may be said of American journalists, who are increasingly a dumbed-down, irrelevant brood. 

Two radical Brooklyn College student-journalists, Jasmine Peralta and Danielle Kogan, recently wrote a piece in one of the campus news outlets in which they present a fellow student's opinions about my remarks but do not present my response. Peralta and Kogan quote a fellow radical student, whom they identify merely as Club Coordinator of the Puerto Rican Alliance Rivera, at length. 

Rivera says:  

I feel that any professor who makes anyone else feel threatened is a threat to me because I, as a student leader have to represent the members of my organization and of the organizations that I stand by in solidarity.

Rivera doesn't consider that his calls for censorship may make those who disagree feel threatened.  The young radical goes on to express the curious opinion--prevalent among campus diversity officers, campus administrators, and the fake-news media--that since the college campus is all inclusive, views with which the hate-filled campus lynch mob disagrees should be excluded. 

Rivera continues:

It’s supposed to be a campus that’s all-inclusive. It’s one of the most diverse campuses in the nation….for a professor to make statements about those types of students that alludes to sexual assault implies that all men are rapist and make sexual assault victims feel totally unsafe here on the Brooklyn College campus is unacceptable. 

 As I have previously blogged, the concept of hate speech is vacuous. Indeed, the left frequently engages in hate speech, and Jasmine Peralta, Danielle Kogan, and Club Coordinator of the Puerto Rican Alliance Rivera are not exceptions. Rivera is filled with hate. He or she wishes to exclude anyone who disagrees with his or her definition of hate speech, and he or she will pull no punches in expressing this opinion.  Peralta and Kogan agree, and they will not hesitate to write one-sided articles to prove it.

Peralta, Kogan, and Rivera apparently have not read the Constitution, the case law that has evolved concerning the First Amendment on campus, or any of the works of liberalism that led to the Lockean consensus that has, until the millennial generation and the concomitant dumbing down of American journalism, been America's common ground.  Indeed, they seem to be aware that law concerning the Constitution evolves through a stare decisis process, or that there are courts that adjudicate questions of this kind.  

Seidemann Shows How CUNY Supports NYPIRG's Fraud

David Seidemann, who is in the geology department of Brooklyn College,  has written an excellent article in City Journal about how insiders at the City University of New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo, and the New York Times collude to enable NYPIRG to defraud New York State's students.

Seidemann says that NYPIRG raises more student funding than any other student group and uses student funding for purposes completely unrelated to CUNY.  When questioned, CUNY officials linked to NYPIRG have resisted investigating the corruption.  NYPIRG's funding at Brooklyn College is now double the student senate's. As well, NYPIRG suppresses dissent on campus.

Seidemann gives this example of NYPIRG-related fraud at CUNY:

When 58 CUNY scientists accused NYPIRG of committing research misconduct, the university appointed a founding member of NYPIRG—now a CUNY vice chancellor—to look into the matter. Predictably, CUNY declined to investigate further, falsely claiming that the research in question had not taken place on campus.

Seidemann outlines how similar abuses have occurred around the country.  

As I have argued, Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits education institutes from engaging in political lobbying or ideological advocacy, but here we have colleges funneling student activities money into direct political uses that are unrelated to student activities. Not only does this seem to warrant an IRS investigation, but the parties involved should be investigated for fraud.

Walter Block Speaks to My Classes at Brooklyn College

Professor Walter Block, famed libertarian economist and Brooklyn College alum, spoke to my classes on November 3, 2015.  Block spoke about his impressions of Bernie Sanders when they were classmates together at Brooklyn. (Sanders later transferred to the University of Chicago.) Block talked about the minimum wage and victimless crimes. 

New York Times Finds That Brooklyn College Grads Have Trouble Finding Jobs

The New York Times  has published an article about the difficulty that Brooklyn College business program students, in effect the students whom I teach, are having trouble finding jobs.  That is not surprising because the program does little to identify what jobs are available and what the program can do to offer skills that specifically target the job market that the students face.  My response to the Times is as follows:

Dear Editor:

Thank you for “Degree? Check. Enthusiasm? Check. Job? Not So Fast” (New York Region, June 8, 2014), concerning the inability of Brooklyn College grads to find jobs.  Over the past decade one or two Brooklyn business faculty have proposed that the college establish an objective outcomes assessment system to measure  job placement,  but Brooklyn College has resisted.  The public ought to demand that higher educational institutions publish measures not only of job placement but also of objectively measured performance improvement in skill areas like writing, mathematics, and interpersonal skills. In order for Brooklyn College to improve the job placement outcomes that you describe, the first step for us educators is to objectively know what the outcomes are.  The second is to deliver competencies to our students that enable them to do better. The Brooklyn business program has resisted objective measurement; you have done it for us. 

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

Brooklyn College's Role in the Publication of FA Hayek's Road to Serfdom

I teach at Brooklyn College.  I'm always delighted to see historical references to it.  For instance, I recently learned that John Hospers, the first Libertarian Party presidential candidate, had taught philosophy at Brooklyn before moving on to USC and Harvard.  As well, Ayn Rand spoke at Brooklyn in the early 1960s.  I just learned that a former president of Brooklyn College, Harry Gideonse, had worked on behalf of FA Hayek to secure a publisher of what became Hayek's most famous book, The Road to Serfdom. In his introduction to Volume II of the Definitive Works of FA Hayek, Bruce Caldwell writes this:

In a letter dated August 8, 1942, Hayek asked Fritz Machlup, who was by then in Washington at the Office of Alien Property Custodian, for his help in securing an American publisher...Machlup's first stop was Macmillan, but they turned him down...Machlup's next move was, at Hayek's request, to send the (by now completed) typescript to Walter Lippmann, who would promote it to Little, Brown. This was done, but they also declined...Machlup then turned to Henry Gideonse, by now the [p]resident of Brooklyn College, but who previously had served as the editor of public policy pamphlets in which [Hayek's] "Freedom and the Economic System" had appeared.  Gideonse took the manuscript with his strong endorsement to Ordway Tead, the economics editor at Harper and Brothers.  This initiative also failed...Nearly a year went by...It was at this point that Aaron Director came to the rescue.  Director wrote to fellow Chicago economists Frank Knight and Henry Simons to see if the University of Chicago Press might want to consider publishing it...The acceptance letter to Hayek was dated December 28, 1943.

Getting Academic Freedom Not Quite Right

I sent Brooklyn College's President Karen Gould a response to her letter today concerning the appearance at Brooklyn College of Omar Barghouti, the advocate of sanctions against Israeli academics: 

President Gould, as a practical matter I support your decision to allow Barghouti's appearance, but some of the faculty here at Brooklyn have substituted political advocacy for academics and so have a biased, unfair, and inaccurate definition of academic freedom. I urge you to address the comparison between Evan Goldwyn in 2005 and Omar Barghouti in 2013 in a public statement.  In 2005 the now-defunct New York Sun ran an article on Goldwyn.  The same academics now claiming that Barghouti, a master's degree student, deserves academic freedom then said that Goldwyn, also a student, was not entitled to academic freedom because he was a student.  See: http://www.nysun.com/new-york/disposition-emerges-as-issue-at-brooklyn-college/14604/  .

In the Goldwyn case Professor Parmar attempted to throw Goldwyn out of school because he disagreed with her claim that English is the language of white oppressors.  Several professors now arguing for Barghouti's academic freedom then argued that students are not entitled to academic freedom. Would you please comment publicly on the different response to the two cases?  Goldwyn was saved only by the publicity KC Johnson brought, not because, since the 1990s or earlier, the school has had a history of supporting academic freedom--except for left-wingers. Barghouti has an international reputation as a political propagandist or activist, not as an academic. Section 501 (c) (3) explicitly rejects political propaganda as part of an educational institution's mission, and in taking a tax exemption Brooklyn College committed to that position. Are you reversing that position now, or are you claiming that Barghouti is an academic?

Also, the claim that there is academic freedom in a political science department with 100% left-wingers and 0% conservatives, libertarians, or other alternative viewpoints, with any alternative views being suppressed or excluded, is a joke. The same is true of the economics department, which has excluded, for example, the Austrian economics viewpoint.    

As well, political propaganda is not academic or educational, as Section 501 (c) (3) clearly states.  If the college, as apparently the political science department does, sees its role as propaganda rather than education (a position which former provost Roberta Matthews advocated--but not for tax purposes, concerning which she was willing to lie--when she said that all teaching is political),  I would appreciate your explicit clarification of why a talk that advocates sanctions against Israeli academics is in any sense "academic" or "educational" as required by section 501(c)(3) for tax exemption purposes.

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen L. Gould, President [mailto:bcpresident@brooklyn.cuny.edu]
Sent: Mon 2/4/2013 10:50 AM
To: Staff E-Mail
Subject: A steadfast commitment to academic freedom with a commitment to ongoing dialogue and debate

Dear students, faculty, and staff,

During the past week, due to an upcoming event about the BDS movement, our campus has been wrestling with issues of tremendous importance to our college and our community.  There are passionate views on many sides.  While we appreciate the many voices of support for our stand on academic freedom, we cannot disregard the concerns raised by some of our students and alumni.

First, however, let me be clear: Our commitment to the principles of academic freedom remains steadfast.  Students and faculty, including academic departments, programs, and centers, have the right to invite speakers, engage in discussion, and present ideas to further educational discussion and debate.   The mere invitation to speak does not indicate an endorsement of any particular point of view, and there is no obligation, as some have suggested, to present multiple perspectives at any one event.  In this case, the department's co-sponsorship of the event is an invitation to participate; it does not indicate an endorsement of the speakers' positions.  Providing an open forum to discuss important topics, even those many find highly objectionable, is a centuries-old practice on university campuses around the country.  Indeed, this spirit of inquiry and critical debate is a hallmark of the American education system.

At the same time, it is essential that Brooklyn College remain an engaged and civil learning environment where all views may be expressed without fear of intimidation or reprisal.  As I stated last week, we encourage debate, discussion, and more debate.  Students and faculty should explore these and other issues from multiple viewpoints and in a variety of forums so that no single perspective serves as the only basis for consideration.  Contrary to some reports, the Department of Political Science fully agrees and has reaffirmed its longstanding policy to give equal consideration to co-sponsoring speakers who represent any and all points of view.

Over the next two months, with the support of the Wolfe Institute for the Humanities and other campus units and community groups, we will provide multiple opportunities for discussion about the topics and related subject matter at the heart of this controversy.  In addition to Thursday evening's event, at which I encourage those with opposing views to participate in the discussion and ask tough questions, other forums will present alternative perspectives for consideration.  The college welcomes participation from any groups on our campus that may wish to help broaden the dialogue.  At each of these events, please keep in mind that students, faculty, staff, and guests are expected to treat one another with respect at all times, even when they strongly disagree.

Finally, to those who have voiced concern that our decision to uphold the rights of our students and faculty signals an endorsement of the speakers' views, I say again that nothing could be further from the truth.  Moreover, I assure you that our college does not endorse the BDS movement nor support its call for boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel.  As the official host of the CUNY center for study abroad in Israel, our college has a proud history of engagement with Israel and Israeli universities. In fact, over the past two years we have renewed our efforts to reconnect with existing institutional partners and to develop new relationships as well for faculty and student exchanges with Israeli institutions.  We deeply value our Israeli partners and would not endorse any action that would imperil the State of Israel or its citizens, many of whom are family members and friends of our students, faculty, staff, alumni, and neighbors.

As one of the most diverse colleges in the country, it is particularly important that Brooklyn College foster an inclusive environment where all may voice their points of view across the full spectrum of social, political, and cultural issues of our time.  As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wisely stated nearly a century ago, when one finds another's speech offensive, "...the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."  Together, we must work to ensure that on our campus more and more speech continues to occur so that our students can be broadened in their knowledge, challenged in their thinking, and encouraged to bring their own analysis and values to bear on a wide range of topics of local, national, and global interest.

Sincerely,

Karen L. Gould
President

Students Rave about My Senior Seminar

Hello Prof Langbert,

 

Many thanks for your course. I didn't have a chance to breathe during the semester. However, the time went very fast and now, by the end of the semester, I realized how much I've learned in your class. Honestly, your class made me think about a lot of things.  It made me look at my life from a different angle. Thanks for making me wiser.

 

Sincerely,

 

NK

David Horowitz at Brooklyn College

David Horowitz writes a long article about his talk at Brooklyn College on his online e-zine, Frontpagemag.  Pamela Hall has graciously posted a video of Horowitz's entire talk.  I introduce Yosef Sobel, the student who put the event together, at the beginning. The catcalls and disruptions of Horowitz's talk begin about twenty minutes in. I intervened at best semi-successfully. The security was excellent thanks to the hard work of Brooklyn College's security chief Donald Wenz,  CUNY Trustee Jeffrey Wiesenfeld and Bill Barry.  At the very end I ask the leader of the Palestinian Club protesters (the students do not identify themselves as such but Horowitz identifies them in his article) to state his response to Mr. Horowitz. He does not make a single substantive point in response. Instead, he hurls an inarticulate stream of invective, backed by his confederate across the room who calls everyone with whom he disagrees a Nazi.

Also see:   Lucianne.com  and here.

I Thank Horowitz, Horowitz Thanks Us

Last night, David Horowitz spoke at Brooklyn College. I served as the faculty sponsor and introduced him to the audience.  The audience was a mixture of sympathetic listeners and anti-Horowitz protesters.  I wrote a blog about what occurred on the National Association of Scholars site.  As well, American Rattlesnake describes the events.  Pamela Hall is working on posting a video, which you will find interesting. 

I had written David a thank you letter to which he graciously responded:

Dear Mitchell,

   Thank you. I would like to use this email to convey my gratitude to all of you who helped make this possible and especially to Jeffrey Wiesenfeld who allowed us to have  a civilized environment in which to express our point of view and who taught the Jewish students that if they will stand up for themselves others will step in to stand up for them too. 

   I have written an account of what happened and will send you all a copy and post it on the web as well.

David

On Mar 10, 2011, at 10:22 PM, Mitchell wrote:

Dear David:

I did not appreciate the sacrifices to which you have voluntarily subjected yourself until I saw the hate-filled protesters in last night’s audience. Since I am used to classrooms where small amounts of incivility are out of place, hearing the anger that you have chosen to expose impresses me.   Your work is critical to the nation’s future.  Without you, the incipient totalitarianism in America’s universities would avoid the light of publicity.

Everyone in our circle is most appreciative of your coming to Brooklyn College.  We cannot thank you enough.  As well, we thank you on behalf of future Americans who will benefit from your untiring efforts.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert

Associate Professor

Brooklyn College

David Horowitz to Appear at Brooklyn College

Yosef Sobel, a Brooklyn College student, has arranged for David Horowitz, a renowned writer, TV personality and founder of Frontpagemag, to appear at Brooklyn College on March 10.  You can obtain tickets by contacting Yosef at  horowitzlecturebc@gmail.com

>Hello everyone,

First and foremost to those of you that donated money to the event I would like to thank you.
Everything for the Horowitz Event has been confirmed, March 10th 6pm. Brooklyn College Library (Bell tower) 1st floor.

If any one here would like to attend, and I encourage you to, I would like to personally meet all of you. You MUST RSVP to me. Either this email address or preferably to: horowitzlecturebc@gmail.com

In other news, the terrorist club has posted  the schedule for Apartheid Week has been posted it is as follows:

Kristofer Petersen-Overton Revisited

Sharad Karkhanis's Patriot Returns,  which goes to 13,000 CUNY faculty and staff, published a recast version of my piece on the Kristofer Peterson-Overton matter that was covered in  The New York Post, New York Daily News, New York Times, and Inside Higher Education.  Brooklyn College's president, Karen Gould, decided to hire Petersen-Overton after the administration initially rescinded his contract.

Several of Karkhanis's associates and I made a few changes to my original piece to address President Gould's decision, which was of course politically important to her. My piece appears here.

THE
PATRIOT
RETURNS

   Vol. 54, No.1                                                          February 02, 2011

Freedom and Standards at CUNY: The Case of Kristofer Petersen-Overton

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, School of Business, Brooklyn College.

The Professional Staff Congress's (PSC's) president, Barbara Bowen, aimed to use the rescission of Kristofer Petersen-Overton's contract to bait Brooklyn College's and CUNY's administration and for partisan jockeying. Based on the Monday evening announcement from Brooklyn president Karen Gould, the Brooklyn College administration displayed astounding weakness in the face of faculty bullying.  Now, people of academic goodwill should press to uncover facts that would contribute to understanding the events that preceded the original appointment to improve hiring and personnel practices at Brooklyn College and at CUNY.

The New York Times, Inside Higher Education, and The New York Post  covered the Petersen-Overton case. There are two sides, but the facts are scrimpy. The administration stated that before hearing Petersen-Overton's political views they had determined that he was not yet qualified to teach--only to reverse their position, for reasons unknown, a few days later. Mr. Petersen-Overton and his supporters stated that the contract rescission reflected an incursion on his academic freedom. Rejecting the possibility of any alternative to the second explanation, President Bowen condemned Petersen-Overton's short-lived firing as "meddling in academic decisions" and, gasconaded that "the union will defend the rights of our members if their rights have been violated."

Bowen's claim is not fact. In the case of Professor Robert Johnson several years ago, Professor Johnson had uttered pro-Israel statements (in contrast to Mr. Petersen-Overton's anti-Israel position) and found his promotion bid denied. Rather than defend Dr. Johnson, as it is the union's fiduciary duty to do, Bowen and other union officials, such as then-UFS chair and New Caucus executive committee member Susan O'Malley, publicly attacked him. In that case Bowen failed to live up to a minimal legal duty, the avoidance of partisanship in defending faculty rights, and Dr. Johnson was forced to hire an attorney to successfully defend himself.

Now, defending Mr. Petersen-Overton's left wing anti-Zionism, Bowen claims that her support for free speech is unqualified. This shift is consistent with a pattern whereby the PSC's leadership aims to represent those who are politically correct and to squelch those who are not.

There are a number of questions that need to be asked before anyone can conclude much about Overton's firing. Does Brooklyn College generally hire doctoral students to teach master's students? If so, do the favored doctoral students consistently adhere to left-wing ideology? Is there bi-partisanship in offering adjunct positions to doctoral students, or is the ratio of Democrats to Republicans 100-0? Have CUNY and Brooklyn College established best practice guidelines for the hiring of adjuncts?

Conrad, Haworth and Millar (1993), in a book on master's degree programs, note that non-academic adjuncts play a crucial role in supplying practical experience that supplements theory. Many master's students in political science aim for careers in diplomacy or government. Does Mr. Petersen-Overton supply such experience? Or is he a shill for ideologically committed advisors and their cronies in the PSC? Does the political science department ever offer adjunct teaching posts to doctoral students who agree with Bernard Lewis (2001), or is the ideological tenor monotone, the drumbeat repetitive, and the harp played only with the left hand?

References

Conrad, CP, Haworth , JG, Millar, SB. A Silent Success: Master's Education in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

Lewis, B. The Muslim Discovery of Europe. New York: WW Norton & Co. 2001.

 

Sharad Karkhanis, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Editor-in-Chief

Issues of The Patriot may be accessed at
http://www.patriotreturns.com
Archived editions are available at
http://www.patriotreturns.com/archive.htm

Freedom and Standards at CUNY: The Case of Kristofer Petersen-Overton

I submitted the following piece to Sharad Karkhanis's Patriot Returns, which goes to 13,000 CUNY employees and faculty. 

Freedom and Standards at CUNY: The Case of Kristofer Petersen-Overton

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.*

The Professional Staff Congress's (PSC's) president, Barbara Bowen, is using the rescission of Kristofer Petersen-Overton's contract to bait Brooklyn College's and CUNY's administration and for partisan jockeying. Instead, the PSC should press to uncover facts that would contribute to understanding the events preceding the rescission and to improving hiring and personnel practices at Brooklyn College and at CUNY. 

The New York Times, Inside Higher Education, and The New York Post cover the Overton firing.  There are two sides, but fact is scrimpy.  The administration states that before hearing Overton's political views they had determined that he was not yet qualified to teach.  Mr. Overton and his supporters state that the contract rescission reflected an incursion on his academic freedom.   Rejecting the possibility of any alternative to the second explanation, President Bowen condemns Overton's firing as "meddling in academic decisions" and, gasconades that "the union will defend the rights of our members if their rights have been violated."  

President Bowen's claim is not fact.  In the case of Professor KC Johnson several years ago Professor Johnson had uttered pro-Israel statements (in contrast to Mr. Overton's anti-Israel position) and found his promotion bid denied.  Rather than defend Johnson, as it is the union's fiduciary duty to do, President Bowen and other union officials, such as Susan O'Malley, publicly attacked him.  In that case President Bowen failed to live up to a minimal legal duty: the avoidance of partisanship in defending faculty rights.

Now, defending Mr. Overton's left wing anti-Zionism, Bowen claims that her support for free speech is unqualified.  This shift is consistent with a pattern whereby the PSC's leadership aims to represent those who are politically correct. 

There are a number of questions that need to be asked before anyone can conclude much about Overton's firing.   Does Brooklyn College generally hire doctoral students to teach master's students? If so, do the favored doctoral students consistently adhere to left-wing ideology?  Is there bi-partisanship in offering adjunct positions to doctoral students, or is the ratio of Democrats to Republicans 100-0? Have CUNY and Brooklyn College established best practice guidelines for the hiring of adjuncts? 

Conrad, Haworth and Millar (1993), in a book on master's degree programs, note that non-academic adjuncts play a crucial role in supplying practical experience that supplements theory.  Many master's students in political science may aim for careers in diplomacy or government.  Does Mr. Overton supply such experience?  Or is he a shill for ideologically committed advisers and their cronies in the PSC? Does the political science department ever offer adjunct teaching posts to doctoral students who agree with Bernard Lewis (2001), or is the ideological tenor monotone, the drumbeat repetitive, and the harp played only with the left hand?

*Associate Professor, School of Business, Brooklyn College.

References

Conrad, CP, Haworth, JG, Millar, SB.  A Silent Success: Master's Education in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

Lewis, B. The Muslim Discovery of Europe.  New York: WW Norton & Co. 2001.

Minutes after I wrote the above piece,  Brooklyn College's President Karen L. Gould e-mailed that she had decided to give Overton the contract.  I guess we'll never know if any conservative doctoral students exist and if so whether they have been given teaching positions. Here is President Gould's letter:

Dear students, faculty, and staff,

Over the past several days, as a result of a provostial decision about an adjunct appointment, Brooklyn College has been thrust into a debate about academic freedom. This debate has been fueled at times by inflammatory rhetoric and mischaracterization of the facts. It is unfortunate that matters of utmost importance to our college community can be so rapidly co-opted by those with a political agenda and distorted by the media.

I stand united with you: We must never allow decisions about our students' education to be swayed by outside influence. In the matter at hand, this certainly has not been the case. On behalf of every member of this institution, I reaffirm our steadfast commitment to the principles of academic freedom, faculty governance, and standards of excellence.

Today, the Department of Political Science and its appointments committee voted unanimously to recommend Kristofer Petersen-Overton to teach a graduate course on the Middle East. Based on information that has come to light, they are confident he has sufficient depth of knowledge and the intellectual capacity to successfully lead a graduate seminar. The provost now supports their recommendation, and I am in full agreement.

Brooklyn College continues to have a strong commitment to academic freedom. As one of the most diverse campuses in the United States, we value civil discourse on even the most difficult topics. We believe that open, substantive dialogue between those with different points of view is an essential component of a 21st-century education.

Equally essential are academic standards that ensure an excellent education for all students at all levels. During this calendar year, we will work together as faculty and administrators to ensure that our graduate programs are of the highest caliber.

It is now time for us to come together as a community and welcome Mr. Petersen-Overton to Brooklyn College. We wish him and his students a productive, rewarding semester of graduate study.

Sincerely,

Karen L. Gould
President

Brooklyn College Student Named Rhodes Scholar

I received this e-mail from Brooklyn College Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs William A. Tramontano

Dear Faculty, Students and Staff,

On behalf of President Karen Gould and the entire campus community, I am extremely pleased to announce that Zujaja Tauqeer has been selected as a 2011 Rhodes Scholar. Rhodes Scholarships are considered the oldest and most renowned award for international study available to American college graduates. The scholarship provides expenses for two to three years of study at the University of Oxford in England.

Tauqeer, a member of the Macaulay Honors College, is a history major who minors in political science and participates in the Coordinated B.A.-M.D. Program with SUNY Downstate College of Medicine. She is the third Brooklyn College student to be chosen as a Rhodes Scholar—a feat accomplished by only one other CUNY institution.

According to the faculty, her brilliance is evident both in and out of the classroom. She has overcome significant personal hardship in the pursuit of higher education, and I cannot imagine a more worthy recipient of the Rhodes award. Obtaining her master’s degree in the history of medicine at Oxford University before returning to her medical studies at SUNY Downstate will undoubtedly make her an even finer physician.

 I am also grateful to all the members of the college community, especially the staff of the Scholarships Office, who spent many hours assisting Tauqeer with the process.

In addition to her scholarly work, Tauqeer volunteers with the Brooklyn College Emergency Medical Squad, the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, and the Sunset Park Family Health Center.

Please join me in congratulating Zujaja Tauqeer and wishing her luck in her future endeavors. 
 

Sincerely,

William A. Tramontano
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

Brooklyn College Has a New Provost

Brooklyn College President Christoph Kimmich's internal release concerning Brooklyn College's new provost follows.

28 January 2008

To: The Brooklyn College Community
From: President Christoph M. Kimmich

I am pleased to inform you that I have invited Dr. William W. Tramontano to serve as Brooklyn College’s next Provost, and that he has accepted. The appointment will be effective 1 July 2008, subject to the formal approval of the University’s Board of Trustees. This concludes the search we inaugurated in fall 2006.

Dr. Tramontano comes to us from Lehman College, where he is Dean of Natural and Social Sciences and where, in 2006-2007, he served as Acting Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. For many years he was chair of the Department of Biology at Manhattan College, where he also headed important governance committees.

Dr. Tramontano comes with a wealth of administrative experience, in public as well as private institutions, and he has a good working knowledge both of Brooklyn College and of The City University. He has a commitment to the mission of a public liberal arts college and to the faculty as the principal custodians of that mission. He is a strong advocate of teaching and research, of students and student learning, consonant with our values and goals. At Lehman (and earlier at Manhattan College) he worked productively with faculty to plan and develop new academic programs, to strengthen research, and to increase both research and institutional grants. At Lehman, he was deeply involved in the college’s strategic planning process and the Middle States Self Study Committee, and he played a major role in the planning and design of a new science building (also one of our priorities). As Acting Provost, he chaired the tenure-and-promotion and the Distinguished Professor committees, and he served on various subcommittees of the CUNY Taskforce on Restructuring Doctoral Education in the Sciences.

Dr. Tramontano has degrees in biology from Manhattan College and New York University, with a special interest in cell biology. He is well published in the field and the recipient of major research and institutional grants. He has taught biology and physiology, and in fact continues to teach even as dean.

I believe Dr. Tramontano will serve the College well as chief academic officer, embracing change but mindful of tradition, and will help advance our goals and objectives. Please join me in welcoming him to Brooklyn College.

Herbert Croly and The Ideological Origins of The Social Justice Disposition Concept

Herbert Croly (1869-1930) was one of the chief Progressive-liberal authors. He was founder in 1914 of the New Republic magazine, and his 1909 book Promise of American Life is a bulwark of Progressivism. I am reading his later (1914) Progressive Democracy and noticed his emphasis on the concept of social justice. Arguably, the concept of social justice dispositions is rooted in Progressive Democracy. In the book, Croly's use of the term social justice is unabashedly ideological. In fact, Croly's aim is to refute nineteenth century ideological individualism to replace it with with an ideology of unlimited government and democratic power. Croly believed that the American population was better educated to participate in democracy in 1914 than in 1814 and that the legal constraints on the popular will that characterized the early stage of American democracy were no longer needed. Given subsequent European history, specifically Hitler and Stalin, the notion of unlimited government with democratic rationale sounds reactionary or atavistic (if argued by today's "new Progresives" such as Peter Levine) rather than progressive. In any case, Croly introduces the concept of social justice and a construct of the interplay between individual integrity and social welfare that is similar to the educationist notion of social justice disposition as part of his ideological argument. I would go so far as to argue that the concept of social justice disposition is explicitly part of Croly's ideological construction. Even if my strong claim is not true, it is clear that the concept of social justice disposition is rooted in liberal-Progressive ideology, not psychology.

About two years ago there was a controversy at Brooklyn College concerning Professor Priyar Parmar and her student Evan Goldwyn. Professor Parmar was interested in disciplining Goldwyn because he lacked what she considered to be social justice dispositions. As well, Steven Head was dismissed from the San Jose State University education school for disagreeing with a professor concerning a political question. As at Brooklyn College, SJSU's "Progressive" educators claimed that Head lacked a social justice disposition.

The far-fetched claim that social justice dispositions exist and that they are measurable was attributable in part to the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), which dropped the use of social justice dispositions in its accreditation standards last year. However, universities can still apply standards involving social justice dispositions without NCATE's explicit encouragement. Doing so, however, raises legal First Amendment issues involving the 1943 case of West Virginia Board of Education v Barnette . According to that case, university programs are not permitted to require tests of belief. Thus, if social justice disposition is an ideological construct, universities are, if they mandate social justice dispositional requirements, violating legal standards. Thus, if social justice disposition is a purely ideological construct, for NCATE to properly address the issue of social justice dispositions, and to establish accreditation standards that accord with social justice, i.e., that do not violate the law, it needs to explicitly prohibit the use of social justice as an assessment criteria in any university that it accredits.

Social justice disposition advocates, such as Vernon C. Polite, claim that social justice is a neutral term and not ideological. However, a close reading of Croly suggests that the term social justice played a significant role in the Progressive-liberal framework. There is no pretense in Croly's book that it offers anything but an ideology or political belief system, a counter-argument to the laissez faire views of nineteenth century conservatives(pp. 148-9):

"The idea of individual justice is being supplemented by the idea of social justice. When our constitutions were written, the traditions of English law, the contemporary political philosophy and the economic situation of the American democracy all conspired to embody in them and their interpretation an extremely individualistic conception of justice--a conception which practically confided social welfare to the free expression of individual interests and good intentions. Now the tendency is to conceive the social welfare not as an end which cannot be left to the happy harmonizing of individual interests, but as an end which must be consciously willed by society and efficiently realized. Society, that is, has become a moral ideal, not independent of the individual but supplementary to him, an ideal which must be pursued less by regulating individual excesses than by the active conscious encouragement of socializing tendencies and purposes "(my emphasis)...

"(p. 199) The individual has the best chance of giving integrity to his life in a society which is being informed by the social ideal...Although an advance towards social salvation will be accelerated by increasing individual integrity, society will never be saved as a consequence of the regeneration of individualism...The two ideals (individual and social welfare) cannot become sufficiently interdependent without retaining a large measure of independence."

The inculcation of social justice dispositions is part of Croly's ideological programme. Central to Croly's ideology is his belief that society should be consciously created through state intervention, which in turn he claims is an expression of the popular will. This is an ideological position, not a psychological model. He argues that a "social ideal" is needed for an individual to give integrity to his life. He also argues that individual integrity is necessary for the social ideal. This intersection of the social and individual is precisely the notion of disposition to which the advocates of dispositional assessment allude.

Professor David Arnow and Collegiality in the Professional Staff Congress

The Emerson Inn and Spa is more collegial than the Professional Staff Congress.

My wife and I having just returned from a lovely dinner with my in laws, who are visiting us and staying at the Emerson Inn and Spa in Mount Pleasant, New York, received an e-mail fromProfessor David Arnow, whom I do not know and I have never previously contacted. Professor Arnow wrote:

>"You bloggeth:

>"> Dear President Bowen: I am working on a blog about the O'Malley v. Karkhanis law suit. I was wondering if you would care to comment on it. In particular, what is the role of "collegiality" in O'Malley's decision to sue; and do you believe that law suits are an integral part of collegiality?"

>"My first question for you is: Have you stopped molesting small children yet?

>"And my second question is: Supposed I posed this question everywhere. Would you sue? Or would you take it in the collegial, satirical sense that it was perhaps intended?"

I had not heard of Arnow before, but have since done a web search and learned that he is my colleague at Brooklyn College.

A number of years ago, my ex-wife, Enid Wolfe Langbert, who is an attorney who has been involved in commercial litigation and published a book entitled "The Bill of Rights--the Right to a Fair Trial", was thinking of writing a book called "The Bleak House Syndrome". The idea of the bleak house syndrome is similar to Pareto's law, i.e., 20 percent of inputs are responsible for 80 percent of outputs. The bleak house syndrome is that two percent of the population is responsible for ninety percent of the litigation and that a certain psychological pattern is associated with litigation. Subsequently, I studied a bit about the economics of litigation in graduate school and learned that rational players do not litigate unless the benefits of litigation outweigh the sum of the two sides' trial costs since it makes more sense to settle a dispute otherwise.

Moreover, transactions costs are relevant. One management aim is to reduce the costs of doing business. Managers aim to reduce the costs of transactions such as attorney costs as far as possible. Ouchi, in his book Theory Z, has argued that high-trust personnel systems, which the Japanese firms exemplified in the 1980s, are more cost effective than bureaucratic or regulated ones.

Collegiality has a similar justification. Academics argue that they are best qualified to evaluate each other and so can do so more efficiently than outsiders. Part of this argument must hinge on academics' ability to resolve disputes without intervention from outsiders. If outsiders and the court system are best able to resolve disputes among academics, then the system of collegiality need not exist. Indeed, there are far cheaper methods available for dispute resolution even in bureaucratic firms. These include mediation, arbitration, interpersonal skills training and supervision. Hence, academics' resort to litigation suggests that collegial processes have failed. Susan O'Malley's law suit is an excellent argument for the Academic Bill of Rights.

I responded to Professor Arnow simply as follows:

"Tell me, Dave. Do you think that suing is the collegial course?"

Professor Arnow responded as follows:

>"Defenders of Karkhanis just don't have the moral high ground to invoke 'collegiality'.

>"As for law suits: for all its faults, the U.S. system of law towers over that of any other country I know. Law suits that redress wrongs are part of that system. If there really is a wrong, it ought to be redressed, shouldn't it? How would you right a wrong? Fisticuffs?

>"I don't know the details of Libel law, but I know that it is happily fairly limited, compared say to the U.K., and so the absurd lies you spin for the Sun are protected-- as they should be. Still, repeated false public accusations of specific criminal acts might satisfy the definition of libel. Your buddy may have crossed the line. Not to worry, I'm sure that the people you and he work for have very deep pockets.

>"Now, answer the questions that I posed below. Don't try to wriggle out of them:

>>" My first question for you is: Have you stopped molesting small children yet?
>>
>>" And my second question is: Supposed I posed this question everywhere. Would you sue? Or would you take it in the collegial, satirical sense that it was perhaps intended?"

My obvious answer is no, unless there is some significant economic reason for me to sue. I do not suffer from the "bleak house syndrome". However, if I am financially damaged, then a law suit would be logical. Very few private firms see employees sue each other. An employee who sues a fellow employee would be viewed as odd in most firms, and would certainly damage their career. Employees in private industry have sufficient interpersonal skills to resolve workplace disputes without costly litigation. This seems not to be the case with the associates of the Professional Staff Congress.

Professor Arnow feels that anyone who is associated with Sharad Karkhanis doesn't "have the moral high ground to invoke 'collegiality'". This suggests to me defamation of Professor Karkhanis's reputation.

I have always puzzled over the claims of academics (with reference to KC Johnson, for example) that "collegiality", defined as interpersonal skills, ought to be a criterion for personnel and tenure decisions. Arnow's e-mail suggests that some senior professors at Brooklyn College lack these, so requiring them for tenure in special cases is at best tenuous and certainly hypocritical.

Arnow goes on to make the less-than-collegial claim that my comments to the Sun yesterday are "absurd lies" that I "spin for the Sun".

He also makes the rather odd statement "I'm sure that the people you and he (Karkhanis) work for have very deep pockets." This statement is especially odd because Karkhanis, Arnow and I work(ed) for the City University of New York, the same employer. Is Arnow suggesting that Brooklyn College will finance Karkhanis's lawsuit? I am having trouble with this. Does Arnow believe I'm paid by one of George Soros's institutes?

My response to Arnow was as follows:

> "I'm going to put your e-mail on my blog. (1) Who are you? (2) What is the moral high ground to which you're referring? Do you have an ethical model or standard? If so, please clarify.

>"(3) Your belief that engaging in litigation as part of the collegial process is based on what definition of collegiality? Please define collegiality.

>"(4)Any concept of collegiality would involve methods of resolving conflicts. For instance, if you know about labor relations you know that arbitration has been favored by the United States Supreme Court over civil litigation in the context of labor disputes. In recent years, even more flexible approaches of resolving conflicts, such as living agreements, have been part of labor relations in some plants. The concept of collegiality involves shared governance. Such a definition would imply dispute resolution methods that are less formal than arbitration and are based on trust and shared values, i;.e., are more like living agreements. Are you claiming that civil litigation is included in the definition of collegiality? If so, do you think than an intensified degree of government regulation might be valuable to reduce conflict costs? Litigation is among the most costly methods of dispute resolution. Less expensive ones would include face to face meetings, mediation, arbitration, collective bargaining, grievances and the like.

>"If collegiality is so inflexible and inept as to require the legal system as a preferred dispute resolution method, should government look for lower cost dispute resolution methods than litigation, as it has done in the labor context, to regulate academics? In that case, you seem to be suggesting that the Academic Bill of Rights would be a wise improvement over current academic collegial processes, which are high cost. Please do tell. Are you arguing for the Academic Bill of Rights?"

David Arnow's collegial response to me was:

>"You can put my email anywhere you like, but the gibberish above) again evades my questions about whether you've stopped molesting small children and I am not going to waste any more time writing to you. I'm adding you to my spam filter."

Yes, the Professional Staff Congress is collegial. Collegial indeed.