Hat tip to Orange County Independent Task Force on Anti-Semitism
The below article is cross-posted from the Orange County Independent Task Force on Anti-Semitism and concerns an interview of University of California President Mark Yudof by the Orange County Jewish Life.
http://octaskforce.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/more-speech/
First of all, this interview is nothing more than a puff piece. What service does the Orange County Jewish Life do to its readership and community if they agree not to ask about controversial topics, such as the recent exchange of letters between a dozen Jewish organizations and President Yudoff complaining about the situation on UC campuses relative to Jewish students?
Here is the direct link to the OC Jewish Life article:
http://www.ocjewishlife.com/site/more-speech-not-less/
In the comments section, I have sent the below comment (pending moderation):
"Blah blah blah, woof woof woof, quack quack quack.
Excuse me, Ms Schneider,
Is it true that you only got the interview with Yudof on the condition that you would not ask him about the recent exchange of letters between Yudof and a dozen Jewish organizations questioning the selection of two individuals to the UC Advisory Board on Campus Climate, Culture and Inclusion?
If that is true, how does this jive with "holding the UC’s feet to the fire" and the spirit of “more speech not less”?
If that is true, are you not doing a disservice to your readership and the Jewish community?"
Gary Fouse
Adj teacher UCI-Ext
Let's see if they post that.
* Update as of 8-4-10, 12:20 pm (PST) It looks like my comment was rejected.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Sorry Tale of UC Berkeley Chancellor’s Office: easily grasped by the public, lost on University of California’s President Yudoff. The UC Berkley budget gap has grown to $150 million, & still the Chancellor is spending money that isn't there on $3,000,000 consultants. His reasons range from the need for impartiality to requiring the consultants "thinking, expertise, & new knowledge".
Does this mean that the faculty & management of UC Berkeley – flagship campus of the greatest public system of higher education in the world - lack the knowledge, integrity, impartiality, innovation, skills to come up with solutions? Have they been fudging their research for years? The consultants will glean their recommendations from faculty interviews & the senior management that hired them; yet $ 150 million of inefficiencies and solutions could be found internally if the Chancellor & Provost Breslauer were doing the work of their jobs (This simple point is lost on UC’s leadership).
The victims of this folly are Faculty and Students. $ 3 million consultant fees would be far better spent on students & faculty.
There can be only one conclusion as to why inefficiencies & solutions have not been forthcoming from faculty & staff: Chancellor Birgeneau has lost credibility & the trust of the faculty & Academic Senate leadership (C. Kutz, F. Doyle). Even if the faculty agrees with the consultants' recommendations - disagreeing might put their jobs in jeopardy - the underlying problem of lost credibility & trust will remain. (Context: greatest recession in modern times)
Contact your representatives in Sacramento: tell them of the hefty self-serving $’s being spent by UC Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau & Provost Breslauer.
Public universities are into a phase of creative disassembly where reinvention and adjustments are constant.. Even solid world class institutions like the University of California Berkeley under the leadership of Chancellor Birgeneau & Provost Breslauer are firing staff, faculty and part-time lecturers through “Operation Excellence (OE)”. Yet many employees, professionals and faculty cling to old assumptions about one of the most critical relationship of all: the implied, unwritten contract between employer and employee.
Until recently, loyalty was the cornerstone of that relationship. Employers promised work security and a steady progress up the hierarchy in return for employees fitting in, accepting lower wages, performing in prescribed ways and sticking around. Longevity was a sign of employer-employee relations; turnover was a sign of dysfunction. None of these assumptions apply today. Organizations can no longer guarantee employment and lifetime careers, even if they want to. UC Berkeley senior management paralyzed themselves with an attachment to “success brings success’ rather than “success brings failure’ and are now forced to break the implied contract with employees – a contract nurtured by management that the future can be controlled.
Jettisoned Cal employees are finding that the hard won knowledge, skills and capabilities earned while being loyal are no longer valuable in the employment market place.
What kind of a contract can employers and employees make with each other? The central idea is both simple and powerful: the job or position is a shared situation. Employers and employees face market and financial conditions together, and the longevity of the partnership depends on how well the for-profit or not-for-profit continues to meet the needs of customers and constituencies. Neither employer nor employee has a future obligation to the other. Organizations train people. Employees develop the kind of security they really need – skills, knowledge and capabilities that enhance future employability.
The partnership can be dissolved without either party considering the other
Anonymous (es).
I could evaluate your comments better and you would have more credibility had you signed your name (s). I get the impression you are at UCB.
Post a Comment