The part-time faculty or adjuncts in American universities are mostly second class citizens. They are paid modestly (often around $3,500 for an entire 3-4 month semester class involving about 140 hours of work). They usually do not receive benefits. At the City University of New York (CUNY) they receive some benefits, but these are much poorer than full time faculty benefits. Many teach 5-6 classes per semester. It isn't a great arrangement. CUNY, like many universities, hires a large proportion of the faculty in an adjunct role. This keeps costs down but limits the richness of intellectual life on campus (the day when universities were associated with intellectual life is gone).
Sharad Karkhanis blogs that Barbara Bowen, president of the faculty union, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC), had e-mailed faculty inviting them to write the reasons for their vote on a proposed contract onto a Web page, but did not publish the Web page until almost after the balloting was over.
Taking the side of the adjuncts, Karkhanis argues:
"While details are still forthcoming, (the) tentative settlement clearly perpetuates the two-tier labor system we are living under...The two-tier system weakens all of us, and the union as a whole."
A group of adjuncts has protested the reluctance of the union leadership to allow them to debate the new contract, which fails to live up to expectations that the union leadership created for adjuncts. One adjunct writes:
"At no point was the opportunity taken to include our one-page statement arguing the opposing view on the contract (which actually could have saved time as well as resources)."
Another writes:
"If you think adjuncts, Continuing Ed teachers and others left in the lurch yet again are "outraged," you're certainly right. Plenty feel kicked in the teeth, which might explain their silence on the DA list today."
The PSC leadership has devoted much of its time to political and public policies issues and has failed at the bargaining table. Politics and labor negotiation should intersect tangentially. The current leadership of the Professional Staff Congress is obsessed with the Iraqi War and with subsidizing terrorists.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
TechDude, Anti-Obama Investigator, Threatened With Violence
Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs reports that Techdude, the analyst who first reported that the Internet-posted birth certificate is a forgery, has been threatened with violence.
Pamela writes:
"I have heard from 'Techdude'.
"'My family is now being harassed and threatened. She [his wife] is absolutely terrified and is afraid to leave the house or even go to work. She is begging me to stop and I am going to listen to her. I cannot endanger my family any further...'
"I stand behind his analysis. The COLB is the fake, not "techdude". Anyone who makes such a sorry claim is looking to kill the messenger..Argue his findings. I welcome peer review by his peers, not highly opinionated cyber geeks."
"There is more to come on Obama's citzenship issues. It is well beyond the COLB now. Stay tuned."
Pamela writes:
"I have heard from 'Techdude'.
"'My family is now being harassed and threatened. She [his wife] is absolutely terrified and is afraid to leave the house or even go to work. She is begging me to stop and I am going to listen to her. I cannot endanger my family any further...'
"I stand behind his analysis. The COLB is the fake, not "techdude". Anyone who makes such a sorry claim is looking to kill the messenger..Argue his findings. I welcome peer review by his peers, not highly opinionated cyber geeks."
"There is more to come on Obama's citzenship issues. It is well beyond the COLB now. Stay tuned."
Professors Rally Around a Fomer Student, Now Jailed Terrorist
The Chronicle of Higher Education (h/t Sharad Karkhanis) covers the story of Syed Fahad Hashmi, who is:
"being held in solitary confinement at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan, on multiple charges related to terrorism. And now his trial, supposed to begin at the end of this month, has been pushed back indefinitely."
I cannot comment on the case's merits because the facts are unclear and I am not an attorney. Nor can I comment on the fairness of the prison treatment of Mr. Hashmi because I have no knowledge respect to penal standards or the law. However, I can say that Professor Theoharis's claim that the case has relevance to what goes on at Brooklyn College or college campuses more generally is nonsensical. First of all, Mr. Hashmi had graduated Brooklyn College several years before his arrest. Second, he was arrested in England, not on the campus quad. Third, I have never seen any harassment of any student on the basis of religion, race, or color at Brooklyn College since I began teaching there in 1998. Nor do I believe that there is any kind of trend toward oppression of Muslim students on American campuses more generally.
Hashmi is a former student at Brooklyn College, where I teach. The Chronicle indicates that two of my colleagues, Professors Jeanne Theoharis and Corey Robin have organized a "Free Fahad" movement that has "gained the support of hundreds of academics, writers, and social-justice activists." The Free-Fahad movement protests his segregation from other prisoners, restricted visits and 24-hour surveillance.
According to Mark J. Mershon, Hashmi supplied military gear to Al Qaeda. According to the Chronicle, the faculty members believe that imprisoning Mr. Hashmi for providing military supplies to Al Qaeda freezes speech at Brookln College. After graduating from Brooklyn College and obtaining a master's at London Metropolitan University Hashmi was arrested on the grounds that he:
"conspired with unnamed persons to provide "material support or resources"—including money and military gear—to co-conspirators who delivered the materials to Al Qaeda members in Pakistan. The materials were to be used by Al Qaeda against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the indictment says. Mr. Hashmi is also charged with allowing co-conspirators to store materials at his apartment that he knew would be delivered to Al Qaeda, and to use his cellphone to contact members of the terrorist organization."
According to the Chronicle article, Hashmi had threatened his arresters, which led to special surveillance and restrictions.
Professor Theoharis argues that the detention violates Hashmi's civil liberties. She goes on to argue that:
"Past Mr. Hashmi's personal predicament, however, the case's potential to create a chilling effect on college campuses is particularly troublesome to those in academe who want him freed...It's particularly significant in a moment when we are seeing the criminalization of Muslim students..."
Naturally, I distrust government's management of the penal system, and accusations of abuse need to be taken seriously. It seems, though, that any time an alleged terrorist is arrested, the CUNY faculty stand ready to provide legal advice and, as Karkhanis has pointed out, a job, in order to support the "speech" of murdering those with whom the terrorists disagree.
"being held in solitary confinement at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan, on multiple charges related to terrorism. And now his trial, supposed to begin at the end of this month, has been pushed back indefinitely."
I cannot comment on the case's merits because the facts are unclear and I am not an attorney. Nor can I comment on the fairness of the prison treatment of Mr. Hashmi because I have no knowledge respect to penal standards or the law. However, I can say that Professor Theoharis's claim that the case has relevance to what goes on at Brooklyn College or college campuses more generally is nonsensical. First of all, Mr. Hashmi had graduated Brooklyn College several years before his arrest. Second, he was arrested in England, not on the campus quad. Third, I have never seen any harassment of any student on the basis of religion, race, or color at Brooklyn College since I began teaching there in 1998. Nor do I believe that there is any kind of trend toward oppression of Muslim students on American campuses more generally.
Hashmi is a former student at Brooklyn College, where I teach. The Chronicle indicates that two of my colleagues, Professors Jeanne Theoharis and Corey Robin have organized a "Free Fahad" movement that has "gained the support of hundreds of academics, writers, and social-justice activists." The Free-Fahad movement protests his segregation from other prisoners, restricted visits and 24-hour surveillance.
According to Mark J. Mershon, Hashmi supplied military gear to Al Qaeda. According to the Chronicle, the faculty members believe that imprisoning Mr. Hashmi for providing military supplies to Al Qaeda freezes speech at Brookln College. After graduating from Brooklyn College and obtaining a master's at London Metropolitan University Hashmi was arrested on the grounds that he:
"conspired with unnamed persons to provide "material support or resources"—including money and military gear—to co-conspirators who delivered the materials to Al Qaeda members in Pakistan. The materials were to be used by Al Qaeda against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the indictment says. Mr. Hashmi is also charged with allowing co-conspirators to store materials at his apartment that he knew would be delivered to Al Qaeda, and to use his cellphone to contact members of the terrorist organization."
According to the Chronicle article, Hashmi had threatened his arresters, which led to special surveillance and restrictions.
Professor Theoharis argues that the detention violates Hashmi's civil liberties. She goes on to argue that:
"Past Mr. Hashmi's personal predicament, however, the case's potential to create a chilling effect on college campuses is particularly troublesome to those in academe who want him freed...It's particularly significant in a moment when we are seeing the criminalization of Muslim students..."
Naturally, I distrust government's management of the penal system, and accusations of abuse need to be taken seriously. It seems, though, that any time an alleged terrorist is arrested, the CUNY faculty stand ready to provide legal advice and, as Karkhanis has pointed out, a job, in order to support the "speech" of murdering those with whom the terrorists disagree.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Pamela Geller/Atlas Shrugs Skeptical of No Quarter Blog Claims
Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs writes "I will not publish against Barack Hussein until we see IF he gets the nomination." She had broken the birth certificate story through her work with Techdude. I had heard that Larry Johnson of No Quarter Blog, who is a Clinton supporter, had obtained a copy of the Obama birth certificate. He blogged this over the weekend. Now, Pamela of Atlas, is skeptical of Johnson's claims and wants to avoid helping Hillary. Therefore, she will not publish against Barack Hussein Obama. Pamela contends that Hillary is still a bigger threat than Obama.
I don't agree and I give my reasons below, but in a nutshell, the American public has the right to an electoral system that functions coherently. Partisanship created an electoral system that does not require identification, birth certificates and fingerprinting of candidates. This is a more important problem than Hillary v. Obama, because I don't believe that either can win anyway.
Pamela writes:
>Pro- Hillary blog's are reporting: *BREAKING* Barry Soetoro’s Birth Certificate in Republican Hands [UPDATE]. Just for knowing, it's total bullshit.
>"This "Republican Operative" meme is being spread by Hillary's camp. Operative? Ha! Republicans can barely find their ass with both hands. They are so politically correct they are afraid of their own shadow. They have not touched any of the O-bombshells."
>"This has Clintonostra written all over it...The African American constituency of the Democrat party is not gonna be happy if the nomination is "stolen" from Obama. Hillary wants to deflect blame and direct the nasty anger towards the Republicans...
It ain't the Republicans behind this story...I will not publish against Barack Hussein until we see IF he gets the nomination. BHO is McCain's dream opponent, HRC his nightmare. McCain's 96-year-old mother could beat BHO. The Republicans cannot even run a campaign. HRC is competent, which makes her so dangerous, should she get elected. And she is a lot more ruthless than competent...Rush revealed today that HRC's people were out there long before the Rev. Wright thing got traction, trying to get Republicans to push it forward, so they could keep their hands clean... Do NOT support anything prior to Denver which would further weaken BHO in the event that HRC has plans."
I disagree with this analysis. If Hillary wins, the Democrats lose regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats broke a story about Obama. Moreover, I am unconvinced of the claim that Mr. Obama is not a serious threat. I think that he is a bigger threat than Hillary. One reason is that Obama's followers will drop the Democrats if he does not get the nomination. They will drop Hillary regardless of who obtains any adverse information.
Nor is there any evidence that anyone is going to obtain any information. I haven't seen anything approaching a practical result yet. It may well take several months to obtain the birth certificate. Waiting to cover this until September may make it impossible to get anywhere by the election.
Obama's followers will not care if Republicans or Democrats obtain the birth certificate. A large percentage of them are under-25, Paris Hilton types who are the products of "progressive" education. Thus, they can't even read the birth certificate. They will be upset that Mr. Obama lost, and 30% of them will not vote. That 30% doesn't vote much of the time anyway. Hence, if the birth certificate is revealed before the convention, then Hillary gets the nomination and 30% of Obama's supporters drop out, and therefore McCain wins because more Obama supporters will drop out than McCain supporters will shift. If the birth certificate is revealed after the election, same result.
There is another, more crucial point. The issue of the birth certificate is a matter of ethics, not just politics. The public has a right to know. Whether that results in Hillary Clinton's nomination or not is not the core of the issue. There are weaknesses to a partisan system, one of which is that both sides collude in avoiding improvement in order to enhance each others' capacities to exploit the system. I want the Republicans to win, but I don't want them to do it by gaming a corrupt electoral system. Perhaps this kind of attitude is why, since 1994 when Rush's henchman Newt Gingrich gained power, there have been massive spending increases, increased corruption, corrupt subsidies to Wall Street Banks and increasingly bloated federal budgets. Maybe partisanship is not the solution.
I see no need to suspend coverage of this or to avoid attacking the most likely Democratic nominee. The Republicans should aim to win with good ethics, integrity and principle, not venom and anger at Democrats. Hillary right now is unlikely to get the nomination, so the real target is B.O.
Pamela certainly aims to continue to cover the story. In another blog she writes:
"There is more to come on Obama's citzenship issues. It is well beyond the COLB now. Stay tuned."
I don't agree and I give my reasons below, but in a nutshell, the American public has the right to an electoral system that functions coherently. Partisanship created an electoral system that does not require identification, birth certificates and fingerprinting of candidates. This is a more important problem than Hillary v. Obama, because I don't believe that either can win anyway.
Pamela writes:
>Pro- Hillary blog's are reporting: *BREAKING* Barry Soetoro’s Birth Certificate in Republican Hands [UPDATE]. Just for knowing, it's total bullshit.
>"This "Republican Operative" meme is being spread by Hillary's camp. Operative? Ha! Republicans can barely find their ass with both hands. They are so politically correct they are afraid of their own shadow. They have not touched any of the O-bombshells."
>"This has Clintonostra written all over it...The African American constituency of the Democrat party is not gonna be happy if the nomination is "stolen" from Obama. Hillary wants to deflect blame and direct the nasty anger towards the Republicans...
It ain't the Republicans behind this story...I will not publish against Barack Hussein until we see IF he gets the nomination. BHO is McCain's dream opponent, HRC his nightmare. McCain's 96-year-old mother could beat BHO. The Republicans cannot even run a campaign. HRC is competent, which makes her so dangerous, should she get elected. And she is a lot more ruthless than competent...Rush revealed today that HRC's people were out there long before the Rev. Wright thing got traction, trying to get Republicans to push it forward, so they could keep their hands clean... Do NOT support anything prior to Denver which would further weaken BHO in the event that HRC has plans."
I disagree with this analysis. If Hillary wins, the Democrats lose regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats broke a story about Obama. Moreover, I am unconvinced of the claim that Mr. Obama is not a serious threat. I think that he is a bigger threat than Hillary. One reason is that Obama's followers will drop the Democrats if he does not get the nomination. They will drop Hillary regardless of who obtains any adverse information.
Nor is there any evidence that anyone is going to obtain any information. I haven't seen anything approaching a practical result yet. It may well take several months to obtain the birth certificate. Waiting to cover this until September may make it impossible to get anywhere by the election.
Obama's followers will not care if Republicans or Democrats obtain the birth certificate. A large percentage of them are under-25, Paris Hilton types who are the products of "progressive" education. Thus, they can't even read the birth certificate. They will be upset that Mr. Obama lost, and 30% of them will not vote. That 30% doesn't vote much of the time anyway. Hence, if the birth certificate is revealed before the convention, then Hillary gets the nomination and 30% of Obama's supporters drop out, and therefore McCain wins because more Obama supporters will drop out than McCain supporters will shift. If the birth certificate is revealed after the election, same result.
There is another, more crucial point. The issue of the birth certificate is a matter of ethics, not just politics. The public has a right to know. Whether that results in Hillary Clinton's nomination or not is not the core of the issue. There are weaknesses to a partisan system, one of which is that both sides collude in avoiding improvement in order to enhance each others' capacities to exploit the system. I want the Republicans to win, but I don't want them to do it by gaming a corrupt electoral system. Perhaps this kind of attitude is why, since 1994 when Rush's henchman Newt Gingrich gained power, there have been massive spending increases, increased corruption, corrupt subsidies to Wall Street Banks and increasingly bloated federal budgets. Maybe partisanship is not the solution.
I see no need to suspend coverage of this or to avoid attacking the most likely Democratic nominee. The Republicans should aim to win with good ethics, integrity and principle, not venom and anger at Democrats. Hillary right now is unlikely to get the nomination, so the real target is B.O.
Pamela certainly aims to continue to cover the story. In another blog she writes:
"There is more to come on Obama's citzenship issues. It is well beyond the COLB now. Stay tuned."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
