In New York, Even Traffic Decisions Tainted

What a Planet has blogged about a tainted decision to inconvenience tens of thousands of New Yorkers, visitors and commuters in order to benefit an alleged crony of MTA chief Peter Kalkow, namely Michael Buzzy O'Keefe who What a Planet believes owns the Water Club and the Pershing Square restaurant. The Pershing Square area is closed now because of the recent explosion (itself raising questions about the Mayor's competence).

But even when the damage from the explosion is repaired, there will continue to be major traffic problems that have gone on for years because of cronyism, according to What a Planet:

"Every Weekday: Pershing Square Plaza is open on the southbound lanes of Park Ave between East 41st St and East 42nd St on weekdays between the hours of 11 am and 10:30 pm (May) through October – weather permitting. The public seating promenade next to the Altria Building is open weekdays between 11 am and 3 pm for bag lunches, conversations, book reading, and sun worshipping. The outdoor café is open for dining and drinks on weekdays between noon and 10:30 pm."--Grand Central Partnership

"Did you know this has been going on EVERY YEAR SINCE 1997?

"Have you seen this traffic farce, from about 11am to 10pm just about every day for just about half the year? Did you know the downtown entrance to Park Avenue on
42 street is blocked off from traffic so that the Pershing Square Restaurant can make boatloads of money serving cocktails to thousands?

"Sounds like fun!

"It's like a street fair or block party that goes on for 6 months!

"This is a MASSIVE traffic hazard. I have seen ambulances and police cars stuck in traffic many times.

"Who is Michael 'Buzzy' O'Keefe? I believe he is still the owner of Pershing Square Restaurant, and the Water Club, that's who.

"Is he a BIG BUDDY of Peter Kalikow, the former head of the MTA and Chairman of The Grand Central Partnership?..."

Massive traffic jams due to poor traffic planning are coupled with a major explosion due to mayoral and administrative indifference to infrastructure. Where is the supposed competence that the media claims for Mayor Bloomberg?

Exchange with John W. Epperson, Ruth Harp Professor of Political Science, Simpson College

Professor Epperson wrote the following in response to my recent Frontpagemag article. My response follows.

Dear Mr. Langbert,

I read with interest your article on the possibility of the IRS changing the tax status of some universities because of their alleged political activities including anti-Semitism. Your evidence for anti-Semitism on the part of the various educational institutions or the educational establishment is extraordinarily thin. For example in one paragraph you cite as evidence two events: a student running for student government was spit upon and called an epithet when she ran for student government and secondly an emeritus professor wrote a letter attacking Judaism that was published in a student newspaper. In the latter instance I would point out the professor was “emeritus” which as you should know means she is retired. Secondly newspapers, even student ones, publish letters. How does either of these events indicate a consistent (or even episodic) pattern of anti-Semitism? As for the student, who attacked her--Official representatives of the university, outsiders on campus, or other students? Is this something that happens all of the time? Did it happen more than once or was this just one incident of very bad behavior? As regrettable as these incidents are neither of them comes anywhere near supporting your argument. You have erected a “straw-man” to support what is an extremely weak argument for propaganda purposes. You have to do better than this.


John W. Epperson
Ruth Harp Professor of Political Science
Simpson College
Indianola, Iowa

My e-mailed response was as follows:

>"Hi--thanks for your interest. I think I referred to Gary Tobin et al.'s Uncivil University in the article, which is a book-length treatment of anti-Semitism in universities that came out last year. My article was targeted at the tax issue, and I had just read Uncivil University, which as I had e-mailed to Gary Tobin, shocked me, so I included a few examples. There is hardly any shortage of evidence.

Moreover, my article was focused on the more narrow subject of tax implications. You might be interested in my blog here:

http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2007/05/revuew-if-gary-tobin-aryeh-k-weinberg.html

which is a review of Uncivil University. You might be interested in further information from Dr. Tobin at the Institute for Jewish Research. Their website:

http://www.jewishresearch.org/v2/media.html has information. I have copied Dr. Tobin of the Institute for Jewish Research on this e-mail. You might be interested in reading Uncivil University, sold at Amazon.com at

http://www.amazon.com/University-Politics-Propaganda-American-Education/dp/189367102X/ref=sr_1_1/103-3708179-5361453?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185585122&sr=8-1

and raising any questions with Tobin, as he is much better qualified to discuss his book than I am.

As well, you might take a look at David Horowitz's book, < 101 Most Dangerous Professors also available at Amazon.com at:

http://www.amazon.com/Professors-Most-Dangerous-Academics-America/dp/1596985259/ref=sr_1_1/103-3708179-5361453?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185585253&sr=8-1

There are so many examples of the politicization of universities that my 1,000 word article on tax issues could not have reviewed them all. This has already been done in several well-known books, to include:

Kors and Silverglate, The Shadow University
Dinesh D'Souza, Illiberal University
Roger Kimball, Tenured Radicals

The idea that universities engage in political activity is not something that requires new evidence, as there has been so much available for so long that I am surprised that (you) are unfamiliar with the extensive literature. The point of my article was to discuss the tax implications of the political university, which is virgin territory.

Why don't you read the above material, and then get back to me if you are still surprised at the idea that radical activisim, (e.g., "peace studies"), propaganda, political advocacy and one-sided chanting of extremist views, to include anti-Semitism, are common in universities. Frankly, I (was) surprised that you're surprised.

Mitchell Langbert

Quality versus Accountability in The Ward Churchill Firing

The University of Colorado has fired Ward Churchill. The New York Sun reports:

"Three faculty committees had accused Mr. Churchill of plagiarism, falsification, and other misconduct. The research allegations stem from some of Mr. Churchill's other writings, although the investigation began after the controversy over his September 11 essay.

"The decision was really pretty basic," the university's president, Hank Brown, said, adding that the school had little choice but to fire Mr. Churchill to protect the integrity of the university's research."

In today's Wall Street Journal online Hank Brown adds that:

"While no action was taken by the university with regard to his views on 9/11, many complaints surfaced at the time about his scholarship...three separate investigative panels -- which included more than 20 of his faculty peers and which worked for over two years -- to unanimously find a pattern of serious, deliberate and repeated research misconduct.

"...But his case is about far more than academic misconduct. It is about the accountability that public universities must demonstrate. Mr. Churchill's difficulties in facing up to his academic responsibilities are in many ways emblematic of higher education's trouble with accountability. Too often, colleges and universities tend to insulate themselves in ivy-covered buildings and have not been as diligent as necessary to ensure that the academic enterprise is conducted rigorously and honestly..."

Mr. Brown is right that the granting of tenure to Ward Churchill reflects a lack of accountability in higher education. As David Horowitz blogs today in Frontpagemag:

"The firing of Ward Churchill for academic incompetence and fraud is long overdue. The fact that the chairman of the Colorado University regents said it was "not an easy decision to make" reminds us how this scandal lifts the lid on the vast corruption of the academic process that tenured radicals have accomplished in the last several decades."

Horowitz also notes that:

"The entire Ethnic Studies department at Colorado U is composed of Churchill clones and worshippers".

The problem with Colorado's response to Ward Churchill is that it views Churchill as an exception. David Horowitz is right that the problem is systemic, not the fault of Churchill alone. As Jonah Goldberg noted in National Review in 2005, Churchill holds no Ph.D. Yet, he was granted tenure and permitted to serve as departmental chair. He was not only granted these rewards by the University of Colorado, but was invited to speak at numerous other colleges, such as Hamilton College.

There are two interpretations of the idea of quality. The first is that quality is at least equal to a tolerance or a standard. If a unit's dimensions are within tolerances then it is of acceptable quality. This is the concept that Hank Brown is implicitly suggesting. Lack of accountability means that there has been failure to perform at a given standard. This is true of Ward Churchill's appointment, but it may be the wrong question if such decisions are symptomatic of systemic causes.

The second definition of quality is that quality is a target or goal that is never perfectly attained. The way to get closer to the target is to continuously improve through the removal of sources of variance. Two excellent books on this subject are Taiichi Ohno's Toyota Production System and Edward Deming's Out of the Crisis. Ohno was the production genius behind Toyota and created Toyota as the world's quality leader in manufacturing. Deming was the creator of total quality management. Ohno's emphasis on just in time inventory management likely has many points of analogy to universities, but it is his overall passion for ever-improving flexibility, responsiveness and reducing waste (his absolute passion for eliminating waste) that is most relevant. Deming argued that all waste amounts to deviation; and that the way to improve quality is to end variation. He would ask whether Churchill was appointed for special or systemic reasons.

That is, there are two kinds of variance, special and systemic. Variance due to special sources, such as failure to advertise faculty job openings, hiring of cronies, or the substitution of political ideology for education (a concern about which I write on Frontpagemag this week) are managerial problems that need to be eliminated before systemic quality issues can be addressed. Clearly, these problems characterize much of higher education. Once the special sources of variation are eliminated, then systemic sources such as poor human resource management systems (e.g., the collegial or tenure systems may result in poor quality decisions that deviate from quality targets) can be addressed.

David Horowitz is right that the Churchill firing is not the way to attain quality in Ohno's and Deming's "total quality management" sense. In fact, I would argue that by sacrificing Churchill the University of Colorado might be avoiding more important questions than Churchill, such as whether its graduates are better able to write than its freshmen; whether its graduates have attained skills; and whether the research that the faculty produces reflects an honest effort to seek the truth. These are the questions that need to be asked, and firing Churchill is not the way to ask them. In fact, firing Churchill may be a way to avoid such questions.

I would prefer to see more fundamental reform in higher education than the firing of Ward Churchill. Martyring a second-rate buffoon may be a mistake.

Will Taxing Colleges Save Them

My article "Will Taxing Colleges Save Them" appears in the July 25 Frontpagemag" at:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=29289

>"David Horowitz’s The Professors offers many examples of campus indoctrination. Evan Coyne Maloney’s forthcoming film “Indoctrinate U” offers still more. Universities have had trouble distinguishing between education and propaganda. The trouble intensifies each year. In the 1980s, City College’s Professor Leonard Jeffries was a lone example when he claimed that whites are “ice people.” Today, anti-Semitism and propaganda increasingly dominate college campuses.

>"Although agenda-driven groups like the American Association of University Professors and the New York State United Teachers claim otherwise, universities no longer defend academic freedom as the freedom to debate ideas and theories based on scientific deduction and evidence. Instead, today’s professoriate defines academic freedom as the academic collective’s freedom from external expectations. But no institution ought to enjoy complete freedom from legal and social norms. Universities have no freedom to harass Jewish students; to propagandize; or to support liberal political candidates. These limitations on are not just ethical. They are enshrined in tax code section 501 (c) (3) and related regulations that grant universities tax exemptions worth tens of billions of dollars and allow donors to deduct their donations...."

See the rest at:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=29289