Chalk is Speech

On University Rankings, Poorly Educated Legislators, and (the Spilt Milk of) Reputations

2010-08-25T22:57:00.000-07:00

Its the beginning of the new school year, and we've all had the chance to look over the 2011 US News and World Report National University Rankings. Sure, the top 10 are the same, they look (and act) like the top clubs in the British Premier League, but the rankings do not stop there. The Tier 1 rankings go to 200. Essentially, this is a list of the top 200 Universities in the country, even if we disregard the ultimately negligible ordering of the top 25. These rankings, and our place in them, should matter, right? The basic talking points have been the following: 1) the UA fell 18 points last year, from 102nd to 120th, and 2) President Shelton has responded to the rankings with, “I just don’t pay much attention to these rankings since they are designed to favor well-to-do private schools with high dollar-to-student ratios, we have a broader mission.” Clearly, Pres. Shelton knows that he can't complain about our meager standing, in effect, he acknowledges that we can't compete, so we won't. He has absolutely nothing to stand on with respect to these rankings, and we all know it. We should feel lucky to still have jobs, he might intimate, and we should thank our State legislators, our Governor in fact, for fighting to keep University funding from foreclosing on us. And he would be right. It should escape no one that for the last three years the "broader mission" has been staying afloat. Yes, thank you, Gov. Brewer, we really like our jobs.

But there's also the matter of those two state bills unilaterally signed into law earlier in the summer by that same Legislature and Governor, SB1070, and HB2281. (Again, thank you?) If you were away for the summer, God bless you if you were, but you might have missed all the fuss these laws precipitated. People were outraged; and other people were outraged by the outrage. Local news coverage was atrocious, as always. Then came the countdown to July 29. THEN, came the ruling by U.S. District Judge, Susan Bolton, that temporarily enjoined the most controversial aspects of SB1070 from taking effect until it is ruled upon in a higher court. The ruling, found here, reads like a Professor evaluating an undergraduate's final paper. With the ease of an experienced educator (and as if with a red pen in hand), Judge Bolton simply thrashes the new law, publicly humiliating its authors for their failure to account for the one thing that every American lawmaker cannot neglect: the Constitution. What the ruling demonstrated, and clearly put on display, was how sophomoric this law really was; a law ultimately written by "coasting" undergraduates just trying to get by with the least amount of work. In other words, if laws like this pass for jurisprudence in Arizona, and if this law can be dispatched so easily, so quickly, so singlehandedly, and so conclusively, then our legislators are a serious problem, and a source of utter embarassment for Arizona Universities. Let me be clear: they are a problem/embarassment not because they choose to write xenophobic and reactionary laws, but because they couldn't write them properly enough. They are bad lawmakers in the strictest sense of the term: they just don't know how to write laws that can withstand the scrutiny of even an undergraduate course. And further, Gov. Brewer, the person who signed off on them, couldn't also tell the difference. I imagine that half of these legislators once walked the halls of ASU and the UA. And I imagine half of those actually managed to scrape by with a degree of some sort. And I'm sure they were very proud of themselves then at their graduation as they were last May when Gov. Brewer signed that poorly written bill into law, in effect, giving that bill an "A", when it deserved to be sent back to be rewritten. Had Brewer proofread that hastily produced 'final paper,' she might not have had to face the humiliation of a federal judge telling her that law isn't worth the paper is was printed on, and that its authors are some of the most poorly educated lawmakers she has ever had the displeasure of dealing with. But again, Brewer can't tell from poorly drafted laws.

I admit, I delighted in witnessing the humiliation on display that day. As I did the next day, watching Brewer on the news desperately trying (and failing) to answer questions about the ruling, the language and concepts of which, of course, she just didn't understand. Again, I was watching an undergraduate trying to defend the merit of a paper that had been given a failing grade; she just will never understand how it got an "F". Yet, I cannot also deny that, simutlaneously, I too felt embarrassed and humiliated by the entire course of events, and for everybody. I somehow felt that, much to my disgust, the UA and its "broader mission" had a role to play in all of this. That we, in effect, also failed everybody involved.

I am suggesting that these moments (and their aftermath) are not unrelated. That the UA "doesn't pay much attention" to nationally recognized standards and instead chooses to indulge in its own "broader mission" has been the UA's problem for a long time; meanwhile SB 1070, HB 2281, the Legislature, and Gov. Brewer are the blowback of these undeniably lesser standards and will for some time strike at the core of whatever criteria the UA wants to judge itself by, because they have inextricably become part of our reputation. The credibility of an UA education was once at stake, all doubt has since been removed. There is no longer any ground upon which to contest our lot. Despite Pres. Shelton's desire to avoid comparisons, we cannot opt-out of these national rankings even if we wanted to, and I'm glad for that. Because we fully deserve our ranking as we must also assume full responsibility for our poorly educated Legislature and Governor. But we still really, really do like our jobs, Gov. Brewer. Thank you for supporting Education. And believe me, we regret not having returned the favor.

Rising Trend in Racially Charged Incidents on UC Campuses

2010-03-03T08:42:00.000-08:00

It appears that the racially motivated incident that occured just 10 days ago here at the UA (story linked below) is not an isolated incident, but in line with the many other instances of racially charged cases in the UC system. Below an AP story of how a series of "incidents" targeting minorities that have occurred at UC San Diego, Davis, and Santa Cruz are compounding into a larger social issue on University campuses.

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=YYivF7Gx

Once again, our own peer institutions lead the way by showing us that one does not have to fall for the either/or that we see here at the UA. They too are suffering devastating tuition hikes, the likes of which, one might add, the UA has never seen. And yet, our peers (institutions and students alike) consider these racially motivated events a top priority, and make it national news in the process. The UA and other local media outlets, on the other hand, have effectively buried the UA's own relationship to this string of cases in favor of mobilizing around the absurdedly contingent notion of "as free as possible." Should we at all be surprised that in Arizona, fiscal issues continue to predominate over issues of diversity and tolerance at the University?

How Self-Respecting Universities (and Students) Handle Their Business––Hate Crime Edition

2010-02-28T16:53:00.000-08:00

Its funny how an entire week has passed since the racial terrorizing of a female undergraduate at a UA dorm, and not one university related media outlet has touched it, not even to deny it. Its also funny (well, not funny haha, but funny oh) that students themselves have not intervened in this silence to make this case an institutional priority.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, there exist people that actually do feel strongly about such issues, and they show this through participation in a flash of collective action that swiftly and effectively demonstrate that racially motivated crimes will not be tolerated by that student body and, in one and the same event, force their university to account for such an offense by demanding educational measures that address the history of race-related violence in the US. This place is called the University of California San Diego, and last week, after a noose was found hanging in the library, what did the students do? Well, they stormed the Chancellor's offices in protest.

Talk about a peer institution. Yes, please!

Hate Crime Being Investigated at the UA––Haven't You Heard?

2010-02-24T12:19:00.000-08:00

Colleagues,

I take to this forum once again to bring to your attention a very serious incident that occured in a UA dorm over the weekend. Haven't heard about it? Really? You don't say?

What is important about this incident is that it has NOT been given any coverage whatsoever, except for a very brief story ran by the local nightly news.

http://www.kvoa.com/news/hate-crime-being-investigated-at-ua/

This incident, which the story reports is being investigated as a hate crime, involves the drawing of a confederate flag and the words "Southern Pride" on the entry door of a female, African-American undergrad's dorm room. Though she has filed a police-report, and working with University officials to relocate her to another residence hall, Dorm officials cannot guarantee that this will not happen again.

Needless to say, this is a terrible thing to have happen to anybody, let alone a young female undergraduate who also indicates she is the only African-American resident in the building. The latter, in and of itself, testifies to the UA's serious and embarassing issues with diversity on campus; the former––the racially-motivated incident itself––speaks to a sense of entitlement, felt by some students, to vocalize (or in this case write and draw on someone's door) their view that the University is already too diverse for their liking. One might wonder if the latter students actually came to the UA after looking at the University's diversity stats and felt it would be a good fit? In either case, this is shameful situation, but further, and once again, the University's silence over it is even worse.

The UA website and the Daily Wildcat have yet to mention one word about this incident (I have been checking). Has the story been buried? Where are our student reporters? Have they been told to stay away from it? Has it been deemed not significant enough of a story? Like the previous chalking incidents from last year, institutional silence and silencing is both something to pay attention to, and something that speaks very very clearly.

Updated––Dean of Students drops Code of Conduct violation charges against Evan Lisull ONLY!

2009-10-05T15:51:00.000-07:00

Desert Lamp is reporing that the Dean of Students has officially informed Evan Lisull that he will NOT face Academic Code of Conduct violation charges. No word yet on whether Jacob Miller has received the same notification. We hope to hear news of Mr. Miller as soon as possible.

Daily Wildcat now reports that ONLY Evan Lisull has been informed by the Dean of Students that his case has been dropped. The story cannot confirm whether Jacob Miller's case with the DOS too remains open or closed. We will remain on alert until we hear otherwise.

An Open Letter to President Robert Shelton from Concerned Faculty

2009-10-02T11:31:00.000-07:00

We, the concerned faculty at the University of Arizona, write to express our relief upon hearing of your decision to dismiss criminal charges against Jacob Miller and Evan Lisull, two UA students unjustly arrested on campus as they were exercising their right to protected forms of speech on September 24 and 28, 2009. At news of their initial arrests we were shocked and outraged, as they amounted to a direct violation of the freedom to organize and to express public opposition on a University campus. These incidents were acutely felt, particularly when the context for the Arizona for Education rally on the 24th was to protest the state budget crisis and the administration’s fiscal and educational decision-making, which thus also made it appear as an attack on the principles of accountable and shared governance at the University. Your decision on Monday, September 28, 2009, to dismiss the criminal charges against these students, as well as to reaffirm the UA’s “commit[ment] to defending, celebrating and hosting free expression” served to calm those fears, from students and faculty alike.

However, in the press release announcing this decision, you also state “that the best course of action is to handle these incidents as possible Code of Conduct violations through the Dean of Students Office.” What we understand by this statement is simply the transfer of unwarranted charges of “chalking” against student activists Jacob Miller and Evan Lisull from the criminal-legal to the administrative arena. In so stating, you continue to commit yourself to treating the actions attributed to these students as punishable, though now within the jurisdiction of the Academic Code of Conduct rather than under criminal law. The very fact that these students continue to be disciplined, even if under a different system, simply perpetuates the incursion by this administration on the principles of free expression, free assembly, and shared governance. We find, ultimately, that this decision does not constitute a resolution to this recent assault on free expression at this University nor is it a restoration of the full protection of civil liberties granted to every individual of this academic community.

Further, we find, this disciplinary transfer actually increases, not reduces, the jeopardy faced by students. Under the criminal system, the University would be required to present evidence and witnesses for rebuttal and would be required to meet the threshold of proving the guilt of these students “beyond a reasonable doubt.” To date, UAPD has demonstrated no evidence that even approaches this threshold. (As of yet, no evidence beyond “unnamed sources” as been presented to actually tie these students to said infractions.) We note that the standard of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” does not exist for those charged in a Academic Code of Conduct hearing. Instead, the Dean of Students must merely determine that “it is more likely than not that a violation of a Student Code of Conduct has occurred” (5-403 (C) 6), and the students have no right during this procedure to challenge the purported witness(es) who are said to have contacted UAPD. The students only have the right to challenge these witnesses upon appeal to a University Hearing Board, but such appeals are limited to cases in which the Dean’s sanction involves “suspensions, expulsions, and degree revocations” (5-403 (D) 1). Thus, in transferring these charges to the Dean of Students, the administration has made it significantly more likely that these students will be found guilty and punished, whereas the criminal complaint would have most likely failed. This is no victory for sane or humane treatment of students.

Dr. Shelton, though we appreciate your decision to correct the course sparked by the incidents of last week, including the dropping of criminal charges against the students, as well as instructing the UAPD to “avoid citing individuals for criminal damage for similar future events,” we urge you also to reconsider the suggested administrative action against Mr. Miller, Mr. Lisull, and against any student facing a similar situation in the future. And finally, we ask you to renew in both speech and action your commitment to the principles of a truly public university, including freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and shared governance.

Faculty Signatures:

Abraham Acosta, Spanish and Portuguese
Jason Brown, Creative Writing Program
Maritza Cardenas, English
Jenn Croissant, Gender and Women's Studies
Adam Geary, Gender and Women's Studies
Roger Hartley, Government and Public Policy
Fenton Johnson, Creative Writing Program
John Paul Jones III, Geography and Development
Miranda Joseph, Gender and Women's Studies
Elizabeth Kennedy, Gender and Women's Studies
David Plane, Geography and Development
Marv Waterstone, Geography and Development

Charges Dropped, Academic Violation Looms

2009-09-28T17:45:00.000-07:00

Some may already be aware that criminal charges against Jacob Miller and Evan Lisull were dropped by President Shelton this afternoon. However, the Star is also reporting that instead of issuing further criminal citations for chalking, culprits will now be referred to the Dean of Student's Office for a code of conduct violation. In short, speech acts at the UA will still carry with them punitive consequences. So though Mr. Miller and Mr. Lisull's criminal charges were dropped, they still face administratively governed ones. If reflected upon for moment, one can see the same insidious tactic is at play: students will continue to be targeted for speech act violations. This is not over, and I implore all colleagues not to let up on this issue; as it stands now, our students will no longer have the same right to speech as faculty.

Statement of Faculty Support for Jacob Miller and Evan Lisull

2009-09-28T12:30:00.000-07:00

September 28, 2009

Dear University of Arizona Community,

We, the undersigned faculty and graduate students at the University of Arizona, write to express our outrage at the recent surge of student arrests by the UAPD over the matter of chalking, a form of symbolic expression protected by our First Amendment right to free speech. These arrests violate the core values of academic freedom and the principle of free speech inherent to every University setting. We also hold that these escalating arrests irreparably damage the image and legitimacy of the University of Arizona as a public institution of higher education. We insist that these oppressive tactics stop immediately.

On Thursday September 24, Jacob Miller, first year Master’s student in the School of Geography and Development, was arrested for chalking during the Arizona for Education rally. Most recently, in the early morning of September 28, Evan Lisull, Senior in Political Science, was also arrested for chalking in a symbolic protest to the previous week's crackdown. Both have been charged with “criminal damage” and “disturbing an educational institution” for their exercising of protected forms of speech. This is a disturbing escalation of events that should deeply concern us all.

We maintain that the chalking of pavement––for publicity, for art, for speech––is a common practice at almost all University settings. Here at the University of Arizona, one walks over instances of chalking on a frequent basis. As is well-known, chalking effects absolutely no damage to existing structures, and washes away easily, making it an ideal form for all types of social expression. This should be particularly the case at any world-class university setting, where all such symbolic expression is tolerated, welcomed, and appreciated, not because one approves of it, but because it is protected. This is not the situation at the University of Arizona, where these arrests display instead a betrayal of the University’s fundamental missions.

Chalking, in and of itself, does not constitute “criminal damage,” and further, its prohibition has never been enforced, and even less so with the criminal charges and fines both Mr. Miller and Mr. Lisull now face. We hold that this is an arbitrary application of the law whose objective is to inhibit and even silence speech in the wake of rising public opposition to the current UA transformation plan. We the undersigned hold that regardless of one’s position on this or any issue, assaults on free speech by the UAPD, such as those witnessed here on Sept. 24 and 26, will not be tolerated. We, instead, are bound by a democratic and intellectual responsibility to not only foster speech, but to the aggressive and tireless safeguarding of those spaces from which we all can speak. This responsibility includes safeguarding everyone’s constitutional freedoms from the institution itself.

Unfortunately for all of us, word of this incident has already made itself known nationally. The on-campus arrest of a university student on charges related to the censoring free speech is itself a story that cannot and should not be silenced. But we will not lie nor mislead our colleagues at peer institutions about the facts of this case. They must be made known. Tarnish to this institution’s image has already been accomplished from the first arrest, however, the full extent of it, stemming now from this second, might not be known for years. But we do know that the damage to the UA by their unwarranted arrests of Mr. Miller and Mr. Lisull can be either exacerbated or minimized only by subsequent actions from University administration.

We, the undersigned, therefore insist to both President Shelton and the UAPD that all charges against Jacob Miller and Evan Lisull be immediately dropped, and further, that all police action against acts of free speech by students, staff and faculty at this University cease.

(Corrections, suggestions welcome. To sign-on to this statement please leave name and dept in the comment field)

Faculty and Grad Student Signatures:

Abraham Acosta, Spanish and Portuguese
Jake Harwood, Communication
Dee Hill Zuganelli, Sociology
Louise Roth, Sociology
Mariel Watt, Anthropology
Seth Wright, Sociology

Escalating Arrests

2009-09-28T12:07:00.000-07:00

Reports are circulating that yet another chalking arrest of a student took place this morning. sallygradstudent reports that political science senior, Evan Lisull, was arrested for chalking in response to the previous week's crackdown. This is a sign of escalating incursions upon the exercise of free speech on campus. The previous letter of support for Jacob Miller now has to account for what seems to be a larger repressive strategy by the administration. I hope to put up another letter/petition informed by both incidents. I will not presume that since you sign-on for the first letter that you will sign-on to the next one, but hope you do, and hope you indicate that to me.

Statement of Support for Jacob Miller

2009-09-28T11:57:00.000-07:00

September 28, 2009

Dear University of Arizona Community,

We, the undersigned faculty and graduate students at the University of Arizona, write to express our disbelief and shock at reports of the arrest of Jacob Miller, first year Master’s student in the School of Geography and Development, after the Arizona for Education rally on September 24. We feel the circumstances surrounding Mr. Jacob’s arrest violate the core values of academic freedom and the principle of free speech at a University setting, and irreparably damages the image and prestige of the University of Arizona as a top research institution in the nation.

On Thursday September 24 between the 12:30 and 1pm, mere minutes after the peaceful conclusion to the Arizona for Education rally, Mr. Miller was approached by UAPD officers and arrested in connection with the chalking of the pavement surrounding the Administration Building earlier that morning. Mr. Miller has subsequently been charged with “criminal damage” and “disturbing an educational institution” for his involvement with the rally. Police also warned that further arrests from this incident may follow. Mr. Miller is due in court on October 14 to face these charges.

The chalking of pavement––for publicity, for art, for speech––is a common practice at almost all University settings. Here at the University of Arizona, one walks over instances of chalking on a frequent basis. As is well-known, chalking effects absolutely no damage to existing structures, and washes away easily, making it an ideal form for all types of social expression. This is particularly the case here, in a world-class university setting, where all such symbolic expression should not only be tolerated but welcomed and appreciated.

Chalking, in and of itself, does not constitute “criminal damage,” and further, its prohibition has never been enforced, and even less so with the criminal charges and fines Mr. Miller now faces. We feel that this is an arbitrary application of the law whose objective is to inhibit speech and silence public opposition to the current UA transformation plan. We the undersigned hold that regardless of one’s position on this issue, assaults on free speech by the UAPD, such as the one witnessed here on Sept. 24, will not be tolerated. We, instead, are bound by a democratic and intellectual responsibility to not only foster speech, but to the aggressive and tireless safeguarding of those spaces from which we all can speak. This responsibility includes safeguarding everyone’s constitutional freedoms from the institution itself.

Unfortunately for all of us, word of this incident has already made itself known nationally. The on-campus arrest of a university student on charges related to free speech is itself a story that cannot and should not be silenced. But we will not lie nor mislead our colleagues at peer institutions about the facts of this case. They must be made known. The damage to this institution’s image has already been done, the full extent of which, however, might not be known for years. But we do know that the damage to the UA by the unwarranted arrest of Mr. Miller can be either exacerbated or minimized only by subsequent actions from University administration.

We, the undersigned, therefore insist to both President Shelton and the UAPD that all charges against Jacob Miller be immediately dropped, and further, that Mr. Miller be provided written assurance by the President that continuation of his graduate studies and employment will not suffer any negative consequences resulting from the events of September 24, 2009.

(If you wish to sign-on to this statement, please leave comment with your name and dept.)

Faculty and Grad Student Signatures:

Abraham Acosta, Spanish and Portuguese
Beth Alvarado, English
Patrick Baliani, English
Laura Briggs, Gender and Women's Studies
Jason Brown, English
Kari Boyd McBride, Women’s Studies
Maritza Cardenas, English
Andrew Carnie, Linguistics
Malcolm Compitello, Spanish and Portuguese
Adam Donaldson, History
Suzanne Dovi, Government and Public Policy
Javier Duran, Spanish and Portuguese
Elizabeth Evans, English
Larry Evers, English
Caryl Flinn, Gender and Women’s Studies
Mika Galilee-Belfer, Grad Student, Higher Education
Carlos Gallego, English
Adam Geary, Women’s Studies
Beth Grindell, Arizona State Museum
Laura Gutierrez, Spanish and Portuguese
Roger Hartley, School of Government and Public Policy
Jake Harwood, Communication
Dee Hill Zuganelli, Sociology
Asli Igsiz, Near Eastern Studies
Fenton Johnson, Creative Writing
Miranda Joseph, Women’s Studies
Elizabeth Kennedy, Gender and Women's Studies
Frederick Kiefer, English
Jenny Lee, Education
Adela C. Licona, English
Ken S. McAllister, English
Kari McBride, Women's Studies
Judith McDaniel, Women’s Studies and Political Science
Yaseen Noorani, Near Eastern Studies
David Robinson, English
Andrea Romero, Mexican-American Studies
Sally Stevens, SIROW
Laura Tabili, History
Erec Toso, English
Alexandra Tracy-Ramirez, Grad Student, Law/Women's Studies
John Ulreich, English
Adam Ussishkin, Linguistics
Amy Williamsen, Spanish and Portuguese